- From: <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:17:23 +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>
After Renato's solution here:
https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/263#issuecomment-330711195
... could you run it? Can I give this issue as "closed"?
Víctor
"Michael Steidl (IPTC)" <mdirector@iptc.org> escribió:
> 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 Wednesday, 20 September 2017 15:17:48 UTC