Currently in the ontology we have that the range of sotw:describesFeature is a sotw:DataFeature, this forces practitioners to create a custom ontology to describe their data features. In the following example, for instance:
{
"@context": [
"http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld",
"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AndreaCimminoArriaga/odrl/refs/heads/master/formal-semantics/ontology/evaluation_request.json"
],
"@type": "EvaluationRequest",
"@id": "http://example.com/policy/evaluationrequest/B11",
"evaluatedAction": "odrl:print",
"evaluatedTarget": "http://example.com/document/1234",
"requestParameters" : {
"@type" : "RequestParameter",
"value" : { "@id" : "1000", "@type" : "xsd:integer" },
"describesFeature" : "http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dots_per_inch"
}
}The "describesFeature" : "http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dots_per_inch" is incorrect since the DBPedia resource is not subclass of sotw:DataFeature. I would suggest to change the range of the property sotw:describesFeature to something like rdfs:Resource and then define the sotw:DataFeature as subclass (which is given by granted since everything is an rdfs:Resource). In this way, we provide more flexibility to practitioners. On the one hand, those willing to define a new ontology can have fine grained semantics, on the other hand, those not willing to can re-use terms (like in the above example). What do you think?
Currently in the ontology we have that the range of
sotw:describesFeatureis asotw:DataFeature, this forces practitioners to create a custom ontology to describe their data features. In the following example, for instance:{ "@context": [ "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld", "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AndreaCimminoArriaga/odrl/refs/heads/master/formal-semantics/ontology/evaluation_request.json" ], "@type": "EvaluationRequest", "@id": "http://example.com/policy/evaluationrequest/B11", "evaluatedAction": "odrl:print", "evaluatedTarget": "http://example.com/document/1234", "requestParameters" : { "@type" : "RequestParameter", "value" : { "@id" : "1000", "@type" : "xsd:integer" }, "describesFeature" : "http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dots_per_inch" } }The
"describesFeature" : "http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dots_per_inch"is incorrect since the DBPedia resource is not subclass ofsotw:DataFeature. I would suggest to change the range of the propertysotw:describesFeatureto something likerdfs:Resourceand then define thesotw:DataFeatureas subclass (which is given by granted since everything is anrdfs:Resource). In this way, we provide more flexibility to practitioners. On the one hand, those willing to define a new ontology can have fine grained semantics, on the other hand, those not willing to can re-use terms (like in the above example). What do you think?