Add sameAs/subClassOf

[riannella]

Add owl:sameAs axion to the ODRL Ontology (to enable greater semantic interoperability)

eg; odrl:Policy owl:sameAs dct:Policy

Make more suggestions here...

[iherman]

I am not sure. That is a very strong statement, that means that anybody using dct:Policy would be automatically having an odrl:Policy, too. If we do that, then we should get an agreement from DCMI and it actually raises the question of why we are having an odrl policy in the first place. Another (and not problematic) statement is to use rdfs:subClassOf instead. Ivan

…

On 9 Dec 2016, at 08:25, Renato Iannella ***@***.***> wrote: Add owl:sameAs axion to the ODRL Ontology (to enable greater semantic interoperability) eg; odrl:Policy owl:sameAs dct:Policy Make more suggestions here...

[riannella]

Yes, sure...we can use subClassOf...and I changed the title of this issue;-)

[iherman]

On 9 Dec 2016, at 12:34, Renato Iannella ***@***.***> wrote: Yes, sure...we can use subClassOf...and I changed the title of this issue;-)

That would work for me.

[riannella]

We should look at some general purpose vocabs to map to.
Suggest:
schema.org
dbpedia

and some license-specific.
Suggest:
https://creativecommons.org/ns

[riannella]

Proposal:

odrl:Action subClassOf
http://schema.org/Action

odrl:Asset subClassOf
http://schema.org/CreativeWork
http://dbpedia.org/page/Asset
http://creativecommons.org/ns#Work

odrl:Party subClassOf (union)
http://schema.org/Organization http://schema.org/Person
http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#Individual http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#Organization
http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Person http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Organization
http://dbpedia.org/page/Person http://dbpedia.org/page/Organization

odrl:Policy subClassOf
http://dbpedia.org/page/Policy

odrl:Agreement subClassOf
http://creativecommons.org/ns#License

odrl:Permission subClassOf
http://web.resource.org/cc/Permission

odrl:Duty subClassOf
http://creativecommons.org/ns#Requirement

odrl:Prohibition subClassOf
http://creativecommons.org/ns#Prohibition

[vroddon]

@riannella Comments:

1. DBpedia resources should be http://dbpedia.org/resource/* instead of http://dbpedia.org/page/*

2. I would use https://creativecommons.org/ns#Permission instead of http://web.resource.org/cc/Permission

3. I would soften some relations. In many cases this will not hold:

odrl:Asset subClassOf http://schema.org/CreativeWork

some assets will be databases, private records or even something else. The same for other cases like odrl:Agreement. Maybe skos:relatedMatch or https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#mapping

[riannella]

Lets just put the strong relationships in.

Can you add these?

[vroddon]

Good!
I have just implemented the most conservative approach.

• Action as a subclass of schema.org Action: "An action performed by a direct agent and indirect participants upon a direct object. Optionally happens at a location with the help of an inanimate instrument. The execution of the action may produce a result. Specific action sub-type documentation specifies the exact expectation of each argument/role.". I am not in favour of linking to the chaotic dpbedia ontology (evern worse to the pages, which are not classes), so for the moment no dbpedia at all.

• A Party is either a schema.org: person (A person (alive, dead, undead, or fictional).), a schema.org organization (An organization such as a school, NGO, corporation, club, etc.) or a foaf:Agent.
  I dared to replace your proposal of foaf:Person+foaf:Organization by foaf:Agent. But please not that there is an important difference: foaf:Agent includes inanimated beings like algorithms (foaf:Agent is defined as "person, group, software or physical artifact"). This decision enables algorithms to use ODRL.
  The same applies to vcard.

• Permission cannot be matched to cc:Permission (defined in CC as "an action that may or may not be allowed or desired" because it is the class of some actions). The same applies to Prohibition and Duty.
  And we cannot use CreativeCommons properties (like "requires") because then we would inherit commitments we don't want to (domain and range exclusively CreativeCommons classes).

We have sticked then to schema.org and do W3C vocabs (foaf it is not, but the W3C Organization ontology also makes their Organization class to depend on foaf:Agent)

[riannella]

I would not use foaf:Agent for the reason's you give, but explicitly foaf:Person/Organisation

vCard Individual/Org is ok - it does refer to non-legal entities.

[vroddon]

@riannella I have implemented the changes you suggest. However, please note that the current note of Party reads:

skos:note "The Party entity could be a person, group of people, organisation, or agent. An agent is a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect. To describe more details about the Party, it is recommened to use W3C vCard Ontology [[vcard-rdf]] or FOAF [[foaf]] metadata."@en .

It still speaks about "agents" and "things"!
What is the objection against the use of agents?

[riannella]

I think that is ok, as an Agent is still a person/org (not an algorithm...)