Add describes, fix link relation, fix typo in ACL Ontology

[csarven]

• Add statement about the WAC spec describing ACL.
• Fix comment about using the acl Link Relation - registered at IANA - as alternative to acl:accessControl property.
• Fix typo in acl:owner comment.

[kjetilk]

Wrong namespace?

[kjetilk]

It doesn't seem that this property is defined there: https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/#section-3

[csarven]

Good catch! I suspect that dc:description was intended in the previous lines and I followed without thinking.

While we are looking at this, would it be appropriate to change the namespace from /elements/1.1/ to /terms/ since "DCMI gently encourages use of the /terms/ namespace"? The ACL Ontology currently only uses :title and :describes (and we are about to change the latter to :description unless another property is preferred.)

I think we can remove statement with https://github.com/solid/web-access-control-spec and keep only https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl and https://solidproject.org/TR/wac .

What say you all?

[timbl]

Agree we should us a term which exists. Agree we shoiuld use DCT not DC. I Like having a pointer to the spec from the ontolgy

[csarven]

Updated in f2eaf6a

[timbl]

Looks good to me aftrer the changes Sarven and I just discussed.

[kjetilk]

Good change! /elements/1.1/ was ancientarchaic at this point.

However, I'm not sure what we are trying to say by dct:description... First, that is usually an annotation property, whereas it seems we are looking for an object property, so something tells me there's something wrong.

Are we really looking for an inverse of rdfs:isDefinedBy?

[csarven]

Not quite definition but more along the lines of describes, discusses, uses. Certainly ACL Ontology predates the mentioned documents.

dct:description seemed fine to me/TimBL if that matters, but come to think of it, I've only used/seen dct:description with a literal value. It (dc-terms, -elements) doesn't seem to formally define it as an object property as far as I can tell.

In this PR, acl link relation type (registered at IANA https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml ) is mentioned as a comment of acl:accessControl, and the term is defined in the WAC spec. I've added/proposing ( 6e4e2fc ) acl:accessControl to have a seeAlso to https://solidproject.org/TR/wac#acl-link-relation .

[kjetilk]

OK. As long as it doesn't break anything, we can go with it.

I'm thinking it probably won't be very useful either, since people tend to expect a literal object with dct:description, but if you think it covers what you want to say, OK.

[csarven]

Would foaf:topic be an adequate replacement for dct:description .. and so we can move on until a more suitable probably takes is place?

[kjetilk]

Yes, that's better, I think.