Re: ODRL Validator document - communication considerations

try "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld",
as context
Sent from Samsung tablet.
-------- Original message --------From: vrodriguez@fi.upm.es Date: 9/15/17  19:06  (GMT+01:00) To: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> Cc: "Michael Steidl (IPTC)" <mdirector@iptc.org>, nmihindu@fi.upm.es, 'W3C POE WG' <public-poe-wg@w3.org> Subject: Re: ODRL Validator document - communication considerations 
can you copy the example?
I selected as input data "JSON-LD" and copied directly the example 1  
with little success:

{
"@context": {
     "odrl": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/"
     },
     "@type": "odrl:Set",
     "@id": "http://example.com/policy:1010",
     "permission": [{
         "target": "http://example.com/asset:9898",
         "action": "odrl:read"
     }],
     "prohibition": [{
         "target": "http://example.com/asset:9898",
         "action": "odrl:reproduce"
     }]
}



Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> escribió:

> easy rdf worked for me..
> this happens usually when certain properties aren't properly defined  
> in the context file
> simon
> -------- Original message --------From: vrodriguez@fi.upm.es Date:  
> 9/15/17  18:45  (GMT+01:00) To: "Michael Steidl (IPTC)"  
> <mdirector@iptc.org>, nmihindu@fi.upm.es Cc: 'W3C POE WG'  
> <public-poe-wg@w3.org> Subject: Re: ODRL Validator document -  
> communication considerations
> Nandana, Michael,
>
> I need your help here,
>
> When I introduce the JSON-LD examples of the IM spec in the 
> http://www.easyrdf.org/converter or in 
> http://rdf-translator.appspot.com/ I get no result (almost empty). Can 
> you please remind me what else had to be done to do the conversion? 
> Libraries (ODRLAPI, Jena) also fail...
>
> I have modified the http://odrlapi.appspot.com to understand also 
> RDF/XML and JSON-LD but first I need good working examples...
>
> Víctor
>
> {
> "@context": {
>      "odrl": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/"
>      },
>      "@type": "odrl:Set",
>      "@id": "http://example.com/policy:1010",
>      "permission": [{
>          "target": "http://example.com/asset:9898",
>          "action": "odrl:reproduce",
>          "assigner": "http://example.com/assigner:88",
>          "duty": [{
>                  "action": "odrl:attribute",
>                  "attributedParty": "http://example.com/owner:9898"
>          }]
>      }],
>      "prohibition": [{
>          "target": "http://example.com/asset:9898",
>          "action": "odrl:translate"
>      }]
> }
>
> "Michael Steidl (IPTC)" <mdirector@iptc.org> escribió:
>
>> Hi Victor,
>>
>> thanks for your work on an ODRL Validator (and Evaluator) and creating the
>> document at https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Validation
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking into that document raised for me some issues regarding how to
>> communicate ODRL related to the IM of the CR:
>>
>> * A key issue from my point of view is that the IM shows all examples
>> only in JSON-LD, while the Validator doc shows only Turtle syntax. A person
>> who reads the IM will get familiar with the JSON-LD syntax - and its
>> specialities - and it may be hard to transform this quickly into Turtle in
>> the reader's head.
>> * Question: could we recommend a web service for translating JSON-LD
>> into Turtle to support such readers?
>> * Terminology: (goal: using the same terms in the IM and the Validator
>> document)
>>
>> * Normalization 3: Applying inheritance rules
>> The IM does not use the term "inheritance rules" but "inheritance mechanism"
>> - is it ok, to adopt that?
>> * Normalization 4. Interiorizing policy-level properties
>> This section is about IM section 2.7.1. headlined "Compact Policy" and this
>> is included "It is RECOMMENDED that compact ODRL Policies be expanded to
>> atomic Policies when being processed for conformance."
>> I suggest to name this section 4: "Expanding Compact Policies"
>> * Normalization 5. Expanding from compound to irreducible Rules
>> Section 2.7 in the IM names the target of expanding compounded properties
>> the "atomic equivalent".
>> - the target "Rules" in the current heading is wrong, this IM section only
>> talks about properties.
>> - I suggest to name this section 5: "Expanding compound Rule properties to
>> atomic equivalents"
>>
>>
>>
>> That's all, thanks for considering.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Michael