License is seemenlgy incomplete
Description of the issue
Currently license and its subclasses is an isolated class, ideally it should be something that allows some process to happen.
Ideas of solution
In the https://github.com/CommonCoreOntology/CommonCoreOntologies/blob/master/AgentOntology.ttl from CCO they implement Action Permission which is a Information content entity that permits some process.
I Think going in that direction should be sufficient.
Workflow checklist
- [ ] I discussed the issue with someone else than me before working on a solution
- [ ] I already read the latest version of the workflow for this repository
- [ ] The goal of this ontology is clear to me
I am aware that
- [ ] every entry in the ontology should have a definition
- [ ] classes should arise from concepts rather than from words
Definition proposal for a new object property permits:
A relation between a licence and a process in which the licence describes under which conditions the process can be performed.
Definition proposal for a new object property
permits: A relation between a licence and a process in which the licence describes under which conditions the process can be performed.
@areleu : Any thoughts on my proposal?
Definition proposal for a new object property
permits: A relation between a licence and a process in which the licence describes under which conditions the process can be performed.@areleu : Any thoughts on my proposal?
I find it more friendly than: "x permits y at t iff: x is an instance of Action Regulation at time t, and y is an instance of Act at time t, and x prescribes that some agent may be agent in y." from CCO.
But I think is missing the permitted party. So maybe add "... by an agent" at the end?
Yes, you are right, a license is permitted by someone.
So we probably need a second object property to relate the license to the agent. Something like has license provider and a bit similiar to has author: A relation between a license and the agent providing the license to do something.
has license provider permits
agent <-------------------------- license --------------------------> process
I find it more friendly than: "x permits y at t iff: x is an instance of Action Regulation at time t, and y is an instance of Act at time t, and x prescribes that some agent may be agent in y." from CCO.
Yes, you are right, a license is permitted by someone.
I like the proposals for permits and has license provider. From @areleu's comment and the CCO def I read that there is an agent who is involved in the process, who might be related to, too?! CCO does not axiomatize that, only mentions this in the def, though.
Something like a licensee? A licensee is an agent that is permitted by a license provider to participate in some process.
Then permits could be extended to: A relation between a licence and a process in which the licence describes under which conditions the process can be performed by a licensee.
has license provider permits participates in
agent <------------------------ license --------------------> (licensee ------------------------> process)
Or better: A relation between a licence and a process in which the licence describes under which conditions a licensee can perform a process.
No further comment. To summarise:
-
licence 'has license provider' some agent-
has licence provider: A relation between a licence and the agent providing the licence to do something.
-
-
licence permits some (licensee 'participates in' some process)-
permits: A relation between a licence and a process in which the licence describes under which conditions a licensee can perform a process.
-
-
licensee: A licensee is an agent that is permitted by a licence provider to participate in some process.
Can we implement this?
Ok.
Minor remark: in BE it's licence, not license.
You're right, I edited my summary above to change it to British English.
From oeo dev meeting 87:
- also add
licence provider. A licence provider is an agent that provide a licence that allows a licensee to do something specific. - new issue: agents have no bearers @stap-m