Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/280 below:

On requiring mutually disjoint sets of policy/rule types · Issue #280 · w3c/poe · GitHub

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 .

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3