- From: Myles, Stuart <SMyles@ap.org>
- Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 21:35:06 +0000
- To: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
As suggested by Ivan, I read through the web annotation and vocabulary TRs, as a way to understand how we could implement ODRL with JSON-LD. https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/ https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-annotation-vocab-20160906/ So, if I've understood things correctly, then we could do this: 1. Create a context file similar to https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-annotation-vocab-20160906/#json-ld-context which would document how each of the properties in https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/json/2.1/ maps to the ODRL ontology https://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ (and any other ontologies which are relevant). 2. Require all ODRL in JSON files to include a reference to that @context - as well as any other @contexts which are required to map all of the properties in that ODRL JSON. This would allow JSON-LD aware applications to process the ODRL. But it wouldn't prevent "plain" JSON applications from handling that JSON, either. (They could just ignore the @context and be none-the-wiser). So far as I can see, this approach wouldn't require us to alter the properties that we've identified for ODRL in JSON, so long as there is a direct mapping to the ODRL ontology for each one. (There may be other reasons for us to alter the properties - such as us changing the fundamental ODRL model). Did I get that right? Regards, Stuart -----Original Message----- From: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Issue Tracker [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:08 AM To: public-poe-wg@w3.org Subject: poe-ACTION-30: Can we only have a json-ld serialisation? will it impact righstml? poe-ACTION-30: Can we only have a json-ld serialisation? will it impact righstml? https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/30 Assigned to: Stuart Myles
Received on Friday, 7 October 2016 21:35:52 UTC