W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-odrl-contrib@w3.org > March 2012

RE: odrl-ISSUE-6: XML Schema Extensibility

From: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 22:53:29 +1000
Message-Id: <D4885E44-6A46-4861-966A-CF0DC766E652@semanticidentity.com>
To: ODRL Community Group WG <public-odrl-contrib@w3.org>
In relation to ISSUE-6 [1] - there are two parts to the issues raised in  Jim's blog [2]:

 1 - the manner in which the current XML Schema is declared to capture the semantics of the Core Model.
 2 - modifications to the Core Model to be more extensible.

A number of the comments under Point 3 (in [2]) fall into the second category.
These propose changes to the Core Model, such as an Asset in each Permission (Bullet Point#1).

We have discussed the Core Model now for a number of years (!) and I think that it has reach a level of maturity that most are happy with.
And unless it is broken, then I would not consider changing it now.
This may mean that the XML produced is verbose - but if there is something the model cannot not support, then we should consider these (at this point in the development of V2.0)

However - there could be a solution if the main issue is repeating elements (such as asset and constraint)…and that is to follow the Duty model and allow these elements to have IDs, and then reference them?

As for point 1) above, we can of course change the XML Schema to be more extensible.
Is the main scenario to support additional elements within the core entities (such as asset, permission etc?)
We can also change the string datatype (used in rigthOperand) to something more suitable?


Cheers...
Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity
http://semanticidentity.com
Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206

[1] http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/track/issues/6
[2] http://jims-thoughtspot.blogspot.com/2012/01/first-look-at-odrl-v2.html
Received on Friday, 16 March 2012 12:54:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 March 2012 12:54:01 GMT