On requiring mutually disjoint sets of policy/rule types

[simonstey]

Although never explicitly mentioned in the IM, the Vocab (i.e. ontology) defines all types of rules and all types of policies as being mutually disjoint (which was also briefly touched upon in #247) .

and while that arguably makes sense for e.g. some types of rules (as pointed out by @vroddon #247 (comment)):

Another example we have always had in the spec is the disjointness between Permission, Prohibition and Duty. I don't see how can a Permission be a Prohibition a the same time, for example.

it doesn't for certain policy types or ones added by profiles, e.g.:

http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#policy-set

For the examples in this document, the ODRL Policy subclasses are mapped to the JSON-LD @type tokens. The above example could have also used Policy type instead of Set type (as they are equivalent).

-> odrl:Policy owl:equivalentClass odrl:Set

https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-Agreement

Parent class: Policy

-> odrl:Agreement rdfs:subClassOf odrl:Policy

Disjoint classes: Assertion, Offer, Privacy, Request, Set, Ticket

-> odrl:Agreement owl:disjointWith odrl:Set, ...

=>
odrl:Agreement owl:disjointWith odrl:Set, odrl:Policy, ...
odrl:Agreement rdfs:subClassOf odrl:Set, odrl:Policy .

[vroddon]

Hi, I think the text "(as they are equivalent)" or the entire sentence should be removed, as they may create confusion. Víctor For the examples in this document, the ODRL Policy subclasses are mapped to the JSON-LD @type <https://github.com/type> tokens. *The above example could have also used |Policy| type instead of |Set| type (as they are equivalent).*

…

-> |odrl:Policy owl:equivalentClass odrl:Set| — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#280>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFLs5R10khroMumh8KR1uRt1RVudB0iLks5svtGygaJpZM4QFfAT>.

-- 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) 91336 3753 Skype: vroddon3

[riannella]

This was covered in #154

Please outline what (if anything) of the specs need to change, and if this means that any test cases are impacted (worse!)

Should we have deprecated Set?

Please note that the ODRL vocab does not include:
odrl:Policy owl:equivalentClass odrl:Set

[riannella]

Proposal:

Remove "Set" from the list of disjoint classes

Add a new bullet point to section 2.1:

• A Policy class MUST be disjoint will all Policy subclasses (except for Set)

Add a new bullet point to section 2.6:

• A Rule class MUST be disjoint will all other Rule subclasses

This will make it consistent with the intent and the ODRL ontology, and should no have any impact on test cases.

[riannella]

completed