Re: poe-ACTION-30: Can we only have a json-ld serialisation? will it impact righstml?

> On 9 Oct 2016, at 11:56, Renato Iannella <renato.iannella@monegraph.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 8 Oct. 2016, at 07:35, Myles, Stuart <SMyles@ap.org <mailto:SMyles@ap.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> I think the answer is “no” ;-)
> 
> Because the point (I think) of JSON-LD is that it uses the same property URIs as defined in the OWL Ontology.
> 
> So, for example, in the current JSON (only) encoding, we have defined the “permissions” property (where as the ontology only has “permission”)

That can be mapped in the context file. any name can be mapped onto the ontology term (ie, the URI)

> 
> Also (for example), the current JSON defines “assignee_scope” which does not exist in the ontology.
> 

O.k. That is indeed a problem. The JSON-LD should be a faithful serialization (modulo naming of terms) of the ontology.

Ivan

> 
> Renato Iannella, Monegraph
> Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working Group
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704