- From: <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:14:13 +0200
- To: "Michael Steidl (IPTC)" <mdirector@iptc.org>
- Cc: "'simon.steyskal'" <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>, nmihindu@fi.upm.es, 'W3C POE WG' <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
Hi Michael,
The first time you try, it can take long (30secs?); and you may have
to reload the page.
Successive tests are fast. If still it does not work, I would like to
see the text you are trying :)
Thanks for testing!
Víctor
"Michael Steidl (IPTC)" <mdirector@iptc.org> escribió:
> Hi Victor and Simon,
>
> thanks for being behind this issue.
>
> This morning I’ve thrown the JSON-LD of Example 16 into the sandbox
> – and the spinner is spinning, and spinning …
>
> Maybe a tiny particle is missing.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> From: vrodriguez@fi.upm.es [mailto:vrodriguez@fi.upm.es]
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 8:09 PM
> 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
>
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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> http://example.com/asset:9898>
> ] ;
> odrl:prohibition [ a odrl:Prohibition ;
> odrl:action odrl:translate ;
> odrl:target <
> <http://example.com/asset:9898> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:vrodriguez@fi.upm.es> Date:
>> 9/15/17 19:06 (GMT+01:00) To: Simon Steyskal
>> <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at <mailto:simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> > Cc:
>> "Michael Steidl (IPTC)"
>> <mdirector@iptc.org <mailto:mdirector@iptc.org> >,
>> nmihindu@fi.upm.es <mailto:nmihindu@fi.upm.es> , 'W3C POE WG'
>> <public-poe-wg@w3.org <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:vrodriguez@fi.upm.es> Date:
>>> 9/15/17 18:45 (GMT+01:00) To: "Michael Steidl (IPTC)"
>>> <mdirector@iptc.org <mailto:mdirector@iptc.org> >,
>>> nmihindu@fi.upm.es <mailto:nmihindu@fi.upm.es> Cc: 'W3C POE WG'
>>> <public-poe-wg@w3.org <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
Received on Monday, 18 September 2017 13:14:39 UTC