Re: ODRL Validator document - communication considerations

Simon: Thanks a lot! Perfect!
Now everything works smoothly.

Michael: You can now try the normalizer/validator  
http://odrlapi.appspot.com/ even with JSON-LD

At least I just tried this as input:

{
    "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld",
    "@type": "odrl:Set",
    "@id": "http://example.com/policy:1010",
    "target": "http://example.com/asset:9898",
    "permission": [{
        "action": "odrl:reproduce",
        "assigner": "http://example.com/assigner:88",
        "duty": [{
                "action": "odrl:attribute",
                "attributedParty": "http://example.com/owner:9898"
        }]
    }],
    "prohibition": [{
        "action": "odrl:translate"
    }]
}

And I got the correct output:

<http://example.com/policy:1010>
        a                 odrl:Set ;
        odrl:permission   [ a              odrl:Permission ;
                            odrl:action    odrl:reproduce ;
                            odrl:assigner  <http://example.com/assigner:88> ;
                            odrl:duty      [ a                     odrl:Duty ;
                                             odrl:action           
 odrl:attribute ;
                                             odrl:attributedParty   
<http://example.com/owner:9898>
                                           ] ;
                            odrl:target    <http://example.com/asset:9898>
                          ] ;
        odrl:prohibition  [ a            odrl:Prohibition ;
                            odrl:action  odrl:translate ;
                            odrl:target  <http://example.com/asset:9898>
                          ] .

Although perhaps it should return JSON-LD if the input is JSON-LD. 

Víctor

"simon.steyskal" <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> escribió:

> 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