Closed nitmws closed 4 years ago
fwiw, I also pointed this out some time ago ->
ODRL Profile Definition | Example |
---|---|
Additional Policy Subclasses: Create a subclass the ODRL Policy class. | ex:myPolicyType rdfs:subClassOf odrl:Policy . |
... | ... |
Additional Rule class: Create a subclass of the Rule class and define it as disjoint with the other Rule subclasses. | ex:myRule rdfs:subClassOf odrl:Rule ; owl:disjointWith odrl:Prohibition, odrl:Duty, odrl:Permission . |
that's inconsistent wrt. to the vocab, where we also state that all policy types are mutually disjoint. more on that -> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/280
Originally posted by @simonstey in https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/271#issuecomment-339225682
looking back, I probably should have followed up on the proposed resolution for this issue..
This ODRL CG issue was moved to POE Issue 303. Please add further comments there.
The definition of the Policy Class defines, among others:
The ODRL Profile Mechanism defines, among others:
That does not fit:
Conclusion: the ODRL Information Model has internal inconsistencies.