-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25
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
Role of the ODRL Common Vocabulary and of Profiles #210
Comments
I assume from this you are saying that the ODRL Common Vocab terms cannot be used "as is" unless they are part of a (formal) ODRL Profile ?? |
@riannella right, the definition of all concepts in the Common Vocab should be formally ok but they may not be used unless a) a concept is adopted by a profile and b) this profile is applied to a Policy. (You may consider it like a car tuning parts store: ready to be used, but not in use - must be integrated properly.) |
This means then that:
|
A. Re @riannella above: yes and no ;-)
B. Back to the issue of Common Vocabulary vs Core Vocabulary, shown in e.g.
|
A):
B):
|
re A)
re B)
|
A) I think we then need a WG decision on this. That is, all ODRL Policies must use a Profile (unless it is just Core). B) ok |
while "being able interpret all classes, properties and entities as defined by ..." is slightly less ambiguous than "must understand the Profile", there's still no clear-cut definition of what "being able to interpret" actually means.. It's about conformance, as actually already stated in Section 4.3:
however, for the remainder of the paragraph "conform to" was - for whatever reason - substituted by "understand":
|
re @riannella A) I strongly support such a decision. Because currently there are three options for the things in a Policy: a) only things defined by the IM = Core Vocabulary, b) things defined by the IM/Core Vocabulary and by an associated Profile, c) things defined by the IM/Core Vocabulary and not defined by the IM, coming from somewhere else. re @simonstey
|
Note: I've added "and of Profiles" to the issue title as the discussion has also a focus on Profiles now. |
Considering "what makes a processor conforming to a Profile" I had a wider look at the section 4 ODRL Profiles
|
Excluding from the IM would be harder. You would then need to have stuff like: So the IM/Core Vocab needs to be supported minimally by all ODRL Processors. |
If we make Profiles mandatory, then the wording will have to be stronger than: "... then it may continue processing the Policy expression..." This means an ODRL Processor must understand the Profile Mechanism section. |
re IM/Core Vocab and ODRL Processors and Profiles: re " ... then it may continue ...": right, I agree this sentence is strange - if a Processor doesn't conform to a Profile why to discuss how it might process the Policy without the Profile, that's an implicit contradiction. |
Note: if agreed, then also need to support multiple profiles for a policy |
Reminder of my main reason form suggesting strict rules regarding the use of Profile(s): it supports the receivers of a Policy to know what terms may be used by it. All used terms must be defined either by the ODRL IM (Core Vocabulary) or by the Profile(s), anything else is not relevant for the evaluation of the Policy. This rule allows the receiver to build an ODRL processor based on definitions/specification and does not require to cover (best) guesses. I suggest this basic WG decision regarding Profile:
(Footnote: sorry, can't join the WG call on 24 July) |
My concern is that we increase the barrier for implementors (producers and consumers) as there will now be additional processing. It makes sense for those that want "reliability" to do that, but I don't think this will be consistent across all ODRL implementations. I can image large communities/companies only supporting profiles, but that does not mean all ODRL implementors must do that. A good read is the Web architecture Extensibility: My proposal is that:
So, a Profile becomes ODRL's "must understand" strategy |
I agree that the Web Architecture Extensibility provides a good outline for "how to extend a specification".
... what "is" the action ziplahuck? It may be a valid identifier but an identifier does not share any semantics. And there is no must for accessing an identifier IRI and getting semantics delivered.
Both options require that terms must be understood for a processing conforming to the specification, there is no option "treat a term which cannot be understood like a term which can be understood". |
I think this is an implementation issue. ODRL says that "ziplahuck" is an Action. An implementation may: NOTE: We removed the "undefined" property strategy from ODRL #139 |
Updated the IM and Vocab to make ODRL profiles mandatory. |
This issue started in the discussion of #202:
Properties taking the role of a short-cut may be added to a Policy. And Compact Policy of the IM tells, that Rules have to check the policy level for properties which should replicated to the Rule.
This raises the question: how can a receiver of a Policy know what property found at the policy-level is - because there is no earmark like "this is a sub-property of relation" in a policy serialised as JSON or XML.
A suggested approach was: all properties which are relevant for a policy must be defined by either the ODRL Core Vocabulary or by the profile applied to this policy. A note in this discussion added that the search by a Rule for applicable properties should include the properties of the ODRL Common Vocabulary.
By my view this does not fit.
I see this as a general question: what properties and what instances/individuals of a class are defined as "may be applied to an ODRL policy with a specific profile" and which not.
A receiver of such a policy has to expect only defined properties and instances and can adjust an ODRL processor accordingly.
I support the approach outlined above: any used property or instance of an ODRL class must be defined
OR
Under this condition the ODRL Common Vocabulary has only the role of an informal suggestion to profile-makers what they can adopt for their specific profile. But using a property defined by the Common Vocabulary without an adoption of it by the applied profile should make this property unknown/invalid.
This requires to change the basic definition of the Common Vocabulary
as it supports the use of Common Vocabulary terms without adoption by a profile.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: