RE: ODRL Validator document - communication considerations

Victor,
another input on that: this morning my browser communicated well with the ODRL Validator.
I copied and pasted again the JSON-LD from Example 16 from the IM (http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#constraint-asset) and the Validator showed a result.

But: the result was "not valid.The input could not be parsed as RDF Turtle, RDF/XML or NTRIPLES..."
Sounds like the JSON-LD was not transformed into triples.

Best,
Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Steyskal [mailto:simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 7:07 AM
To: vrodriguez@fi.upm.es
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

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

Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2017 07:26:22 UTC