- From: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:06:33 +0200
- To: vrodriguez@fi.upm.es
- Cc: "Michael Steidl (IPTC)" <mdirector@iptc.org>, nmihindu@fi.upm.es, 'W3C POE WG' <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <7e8fbf26d057ca963aff29458597b4ef@wu.ac.at>
Hi!
> I have not been able to reproduce the "firewall" problem, but I guess
> it is a CORS problem.
Yep, that's exactly it.. On my Siemens Laptop I can't fiddle with FF's
CORS settings (i.e. security.mixed_content.block_display_content ==
true) and as such aren't able to run any validation (cf. cors.png)
It runs fine if security.mixed_content.block_display_content == false
(cf. cors_allowed.png)
Maybe something along the lines of [1-3] helps to fix that issue.
br, simon
[1]
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20035101/why-does-my-javascript-get-a-no-access-control-allow-origin-header-is-present
[2]
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25316393/keep-getting-no-access-control-allow-origin-error-with-xmlhttprequest
[3]
http://www.codingpedia.org/ama/how-to-add-cors-support-on-the-server-side-in-java-with-jersey/
---
DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys
Am 2017-09-19 00:21, schrieb vrodriguez@fi.upm.es:
> Simon, all,
>
> Have you tested the methods from the Swagger documentation?
> http://odrlapi.appspot.com/apidoc/index.html
>
> I have not been able to reproduce the "firewall" problem, but I guess
> it is a CORS problem.
>
> Victor
>
> vrodriguez@fi.upm.es escribió:
>
>> 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
Attachments
- image/png attachment: cors.png
- image/png attachment: cors_allowed.png
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2017 05:07:04 UTC