Re: The crazy 'qualified' idea:-)

> On 14 Oct. 2016, at 03:12, Johnston, Patrick - Hoboken <pjohnston@wiley.com> wrote:
> 
> There is another model that is a little more intuitive to implementers and consumers evinced by schema:Role (see http://blog.schema.org/2014/06/introducing-role.html <http://blog.schema.org/2014/06/introducing-role.html>).


The ODRL Information Model [1] has similarly used a Role and Relation class (between Party and Asset respectively).

But this has been modelled (or “flattened") to properties in the ODRL Ontology (to save reification I assume).

We then define an abstract property (eg function) and subproperties [2] to use as properties in your ODRL expression.

This would not work for our “constraints on constraints” need as is, as there are no explicit dependencies across the subproperties. 


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

[1] https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/fig/00Model.png <https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/fig/00Model.png>
[2] https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#partyRoles <https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#partyRoles>