Skip to content
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

Relation to other standard frameworks for expressing rights statements #158

Closed
riannella opened this issue May 2, 2017 · 19 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@riannella
Copy link
Contributor

commented May 2, 2017

@aisaac

  1. Relation to other standard frameworks for expressing rights statements (esp. Creative Commons and DC)

Our RightsStatements.org use case raises the question between POE and other standard frameworks to represent rights/licenses. But I believe the issue goes much beyond our own case.

First, the POE pattern is centered on rights statements (which for us correspond to the POE "policy" notion). And the property that indicates the policy that applies to an asset (odrl:target) goes from the policy to the asset.
The most common pattern, and we believe the one that fits most application scenarios, is the one where links in the other direction and use properties that are usually used for representing metadata on assets, like “simple” (DC) properties. Our (rightsstatements.org) specific approach to this can be seen in the "Class for Rights Statements" and "Object Metadata Examples" at http://rightsstatements.org/files/170106requirements_for_the_technical_infrastructure_for_standardized_international_rights_statements_v1.2.pdf
It's also in the ccRel W3C submission: https://www.w3.org/Submission/ccREL/ and https://creativecommons.org/ns (using cc:license/xhtml:license)
But I guess you're already quite familiar with the pattern anyway…
Of course I’m not saying that the ODRL pattern is bad. It is fully legit, imho. But considering existing practices, I think the matter of the equivalence between patterns should be given a much more prominent place, and be ironed out to remove any doubts one could have.

As a matter of fact it seems you are aware of the problem: the RDF/OWL document refers to a correspondence between expressing rights statements with dct:license and the “official” pattern (section 5.1.1, https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-odrl-vocab-20170223/#rdfowl )
This goes in the right direction, but:

  • in fact the axiom is not presented very explicitly: it is refered to as ‘this axiom’ but not spelled out
  • we are not sure that dct:license is the right property (level) for such axiom. We consider dct:rights (a super-property of dct:license) to be a more appropriate level for such linking, as some policies (rights statements) are not necessarily licenses.
  • I really don’t see why this is in a section introducing an ‘RDF/OWL encoding’. It is not a matter that seems specific to an OWL ontology. And in fact it doesn't seem to appear in the RDF/Turtle serialization of the ontology: http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/ODRL22.ttl . It may be better to devote a specific section of another document, or even a document of its own (maybe one that would tackling the following issue at the same time?)

Second, there are other frameworks for modeling rights, notably the Creative Commons ccRel vocabulary (NB: I’m not intending to be complete, only making comments about the ones I’m most familiar with and the most relevant for rightsstatements.org).
There used to be a sort of mapping between ODRL and ccRel: https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/cc/

In the new spec, the CC elements seem to be mapped to, but they are only "defined" in the 'deprecated terms' annex https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-odrl-vocab-20170223/#deprecate
In fact they appear as actions at https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-odrl-vocab-20170223/#term-Action but the hyperlink refer directly to the annex.
If these are still important actions, it would be good to list them as "real" POE vocabulary elements, even if the classes/properties are from another namespace. See the approach in DCAT's document, e.g. https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#Property:dataset_title

Also, it would be useful to revisit the mapping and see if the approach that lead to deprecation-following-mapping is consistently applied. Especially, ccRel has Attribution but POE still has a resource for it in the ODRL namespace:https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-odrl-vocab-20170223/#term-attribute

Finally, Creative Commons and others define generic rights statements and licenses that can be re-used for expressing asset-level policies. We think this can be done in POE using POE's inheritance pattern, where an asset-specific policy inherits from a more general policy (maybe an odrl:Set). This how we've understood it when writing our RightsStatements.org whitepaper http://rightsstatements.org/files/170106requirements_for_the_technical_infrastructure_for_standardized_international_rights_statements_v1.2.pdf , p17. If our representation is right, we feel there is a missed opportunity for relating POE to sets of existing policies like Creative Commons. CC examples could have been introduced in the POE information model in 3.1.5, instead of using only example.org policies.

@riannella riannella self-assigned this May 2, 2017

@riannella riannella added this to Wide/Horiz Review in ODRL Deliverables Review May 2, 2017

@riannella

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented May 4, 2017

Proposal:

1 - update the IM to include a new property odrl:policy (hasPolicy)
(declare as sub-property of dc:rights and http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont#hasPolicy)

2 - Remove the "target asset" section from the RDF/OWL Encoding section in the Vocab.
(there will be an example in the IM)

3 - Remove deprecated terms as instances of Action

Comments:

1 - we kept odrl:attribute as an action as CC only has cc:attributionURL and cc:attributionName (which are not appropriate actions)

Question:

1 @aisaac Are you saying that an ODRL Policy can inherit a CC License?

@riannella riannella moved this from Wide/Horiz Review to Proposed Solution in ODRL Deliverables Review May 4, 2017

@aisaac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 17, 2017

@riannella

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented May 18, 2017

Sure, please create seperate issues for the discussion

@aisaac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 18, 2017

The "first" part is now in #184 .
The "second" part can still be discussed here.

@aisaac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 18, 2017

@aisaac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 16, 2017

I was asked to check issues I had raised. This one still remains.

@riannella

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 19, 2017

Sorry @aisaac - can you be more specific as to which one still remains?

@riannella riannella moved this from Proposed Solution to Wide/Horiz Review in ODRL Deliverables Review Jun 19, 2017

@aisaac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 19, 2017

@riannella

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 20, 2017

Ok....as you state above: "If these are still important actions..." We still note the CC-like terms we defined in ODRL as Actions, but we want them to use the actual CC terms URIs. (so they CC terms are more important, in this case.)

The example from Dcat is different. They want you to use those terms (and are not deprecating anything).

@riannella riannella moved this from Wide/Horiz Review to Proposed Solution in ODRL Deliverables Review Jun 20, 2017

@aisaac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 20, 2017

@riannella

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 21, 2017

I think it is slightly different case. DCAT says use a title and that must be dct:title. They never defined a dcat:title property...then a year later thought...hang on...we should not use that but re-use dct:title.

And looking at: https://www.w3.org/ns/dcat.ttl
I can't even see any of the dct properties ;-)

What if we added more narrative text to the Deprecated terms Appendix ?

@aisaac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 21, 2017

@larsgsvensson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 21, 2017

Am I making any sense?

Yes

@vroddon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 21, 2017

riannella added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 22, 2017

@riannella

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 22, 2017

I've added a new section called "Collective Vocab" for this purpose and added all the CC terms as ODRL actions (we can add others?)

Comments?

commit: 2f5e18b

@aisaac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 22, 2017

@simonstey

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 22, 2017

scr, I had to "Share A Like" ;)

riannella added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 23, 2017

@riannella

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 23, 2017

  1. I initially was going to do that then thought are these actions part of the "ODRL Common Vocabulary"? (ie are these "ODRL" or from another source).
    Would users think these terms are ODRL terms?
    BTW, the ODRL Common Vocab is non-normative too.

  2. Collective was an attempt to say we've "collected" these other terms from other sources that you may like to use...(but clearly not working ;-(

Thoughts from others? Should we move them to the Actions list in the ODRL Common Vocab?

  1. OK.

  2. Good point. Updated.

  3. I originally took the definitions from here: https://www.w3.org/Submission/ccREL/
    I have updated them all now to be from https://creativecommons.org/ns#
    (although I think CC should spend more time on these definitions ;-)

And this is another reason why keeping these seperate from all the ODRL Common Vocab terms as we are not focussed on copyright.

  1. this page intentionally left blank ;-)

  2. Not sure...but fixed (added cc:Sharing as well)

  3. Fixed in 7)

  4. fixed

commit: 35f9f80

@riannella riannella moved this from Proposed Solution to Wide/Horiz Review in ODRL Deliverables Review Jul 5, 2017

riannella added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 17, 2017

@riannella

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jul 17, 2017

I have merged the CC terms into the common action list of terms.
And added a note to state these are from CC.
Commit: fbab143

@riannella riannella moved this from Wide/Horiz Review to Proposed Solution in ODRL Deliverables Review Jul 17, 2017

@riannella riannella moved this from Proposed Solution to Completed (Last Call) in ODRL Deliverables Review Aug 1, 2017

@riannella riannella closed this Aug 7, 2017

@riannella riannella removed this from Completed (Last Call) in ODRL Deliverables Review Aug 7, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.