-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
How to define terms of a profile in a machine-readable way? #7
Comments
Pondering round 2: The formally most relevant document specifying which Things relate to a data model is in the ODRL context an ontology. Unfortunately the ODRL ontology raises some issues:
If an ODRL profile defines its ontology and if this profile adopts Common Vocabulary terms its an open issue how these terms should be included in the profile's ontology:
|
Michael, Ivan(?),
The W3C should make an internal ontology some day ,with elements such
as "w3c:nonNormative", "w3c:Recommendation" or "w3c:Note".
As for the immediate things to do, I believe things are ok as they are:
I think that the non-normative things said by a normalizer institution
tend to be considered as normative as the truly normative; namely,
adopters will also consider seriously the nonNormative parts...
Víctor
El 07/08/2018 a las 15:39, Michael Steidl escribió:
…
Pondering round 2:
The formally most relevant document specifying which Things relate to
a data model is in the ODRL context an ontology. Unfortunately the
ODRL ontology raises some issues:
* The ODRL ontology (e.g. in Turtle:
https://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ODRL22.ttl) includes both the
normative Things, like the actions |odrl:use| and |odrl:transfer|
, and non-normative Things from the Common Vocabulary, like the
action |odrl:play|.
* A distinction between both kinds of Things is made in two ways:
-- terms, including actions, from the non-normative Common
Vocabulary have a skos:scopeNote ***@***.***
<https://github.com/en>, the normative terms don't have a
skos:scopeNote.
-- the normative actions are members of the collection
http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/#actions, while the non-normative
actions are members of http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/#actionsCommon.
Similar ....Common collections exist for other Things too.
* The formal issue is: both "earmarks" are nowhere defined in the
ODRL Recommendation. In fact only some human pondering can
currently infer which Things or normative and which not.
* Footnote: having a language tag for the scopeNote makes things
even more tricky: if a software displays the ontology to human
eyes and if this user interface is set to the language Spanish the
reader will not see "Non-Normative"!
If an ODRL profile defines its ontology and if this profile adopts
Common Vocabulary terms its an open issue how these terms should be
included in the profile's ontology:
* should the skos:scopeNote "Non-Normative" be adopted too?
Is a profile setting additional normative Things or are Things
defined by a profile as Non-Normative as the terms of the Common
Vocabulary? Or does ODRL need to make a distinction between
Normative/Non-Normative and
Relevant-for-validation/Not-relevant-for-validation, which is the
semantic highly required by an ODRL validation and evaluation
software!
* should the ...Common collection ids from the ODRL ontology be used
again, but with different members for this profile?
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#7 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFLs5SLGXgk5Cc-IgW5AZdFm4FzrU13kks5uOZiugaJpZM4VwJZf>.
--
Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 910672914
Skype: vroddon3
|
The official line from W3C is that the Spec defines the normative parts (ie human readable text). Perhaps we need to develop some "template ontologies" with the normative concepts, that a community can then start to add in the terms that want (or reuse common odrl terms) |
@vroddon and @riannella I think we need an interim solution for ODRL. I suggest to consider that: The Information Model defines an ODRL core profile with the id http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/core.
(Formal issue: where does this Collection exist: the official ODRL ontology must be changed, somewhere else as "profile ontology"?) This could be a template for the ontologies of other profiles:
A validator could check then:
|
If we create the ontology, we should be able to ask Ivan to publish it at this location: http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/core |
I will create the core ontology and send to group for comment |
I've added the first attempt at the Core Profile on github: Please review and update ! |
I have just read it. |
So can we test out the approach of using this Core Profile to build a community Profile...and document this in the Best Practices guide??? |
I think this is a nice code for others to start copy&pasting. |
I had a look into https://github.com/w3c/odrl/blob/master/core/odrl-core-profile-22.ttl A basic consideration: a clear distinction should be made between an ontology covering the ODRL namespace (= it covers all concepts with a URI starting with http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/) and an ontology covering a ODRL profile (= it covers all concepts defined by this profile, these concepts may be from the ODRL namespace, but also from other namespaces). This may raise the implicit requirement that a non-ODRL namespace used by a profile should have also its namespace-ontology. Comments on details:
|
Hi,
why https://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ renders a poor HTML compared to
https://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ODRL21 ??
What Michael says about the rest looks reasonable...
Víctor
…
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#7 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFLs5b-YqVbifcl2CSb3-jpopRDxsaJJks5ueIWogaJpZM4VwJZf>.
--
Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 910672914
Skype: vroddon3
|
@vroddon do you know how are these 2 generated or where the source is rendered from? I have some experience in producing properly generated html/json so would like to help. Also noticed that https://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ODRL22.json and https://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ODRL21.json have completely different logic (21 incomplete?). |
@ench0 the ODRL 2.1 page was generated by a PHP script from the ontology, the ODRL 2.2 page not by the same PHP but some other script, @riannella may know the details. |
@nitmws Yes, all the members of the collection should have odrl: namespace (my copy/paste error). Feel free to make those changes in your comments above... |
I think that @iherman created the JSON from the Turtle using some common transform script... |
@riannella I do not think so... The README file says "These files need to be manually maintained to keep up with changes:" (referring to xsd and json files). :-( |
The JSON context file is manually updated: https://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld But the JSON ontology encoding at: https://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ODRL22.json |
Ah! Yes, I just (mis)used (I believe) an RDFLib based processor[1]: although the goal of this processor is to do an OWL RL processing, it can also be done without any OWL RL and simply as a format processor. AFAIK there are other syntax processors around, too. |
Because, down the line, any updates on /ns has to be done by me, I also perform that step as part of it...:-) |
Hi everyone, |
Hi @aisaac , I'll create a diagram in the next days. |
As I just had some free time I've created a first attempt to visualize the relationships of ODRL Recommendation, vocabularies and profiles in this diagram To clarify some details:
|
Thanks @nitmws ! The diagram helps a lot, it raises questions though:
|
@nitmws told me he's going to be on holidays from tomorrow on, maybe I'm too late. I couldn't react earlier, sorry. |
Thanks for your comments @aisaac
My conclusion: we need a very precise Best Practice for creating ODRL profiles. (From tonight on I'm away for holidays :-) ) |
While fine tuning the JSON-LD context for IPTC's RightsML (see https://iptc.org/std/RightsML/odrl-profile/rightsml.jsonld) I came across this issue:
** If the action "play" is not adopted/defined by a profile it still can be found in the ODRL context. How can it be told: the action "play" should not be used with this Policy?
** A variant which can be used by humans is to refer to a document defining a profile in a human readable way. But as far as I know there is no machine readable variant available for ODRL.
A confusing detail: the ODRL context document includes many of the actions listed in the ODRL Common Vocabulary but not all ...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: