RE: Updated ODRL in JSON DRAFT

I agree with sticking with the same namespace URL http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ unless or until we redefine something that existed within the old namespace. Even deprecating something doesn't require a namespace change.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Steidl (IPTC) [mailto:mdirector@iptc.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 3:54 AM
To: 'ODRL Community Group (Contrib)'
Subject: RE: Updated ODRL in JSON DRAFT

To throw into this discussion the versioning policy at IPTC:
- major version number: are increased only for really substantial changes - what exactly makes a change substantial is a matter of discussion, but we apply them quite rarely.
- minor version numbers: is increased for any change in the specifications.
But we collect changes and then issue a new release of the standard with a bunch of them and a new version number

The guidelines for a namespace are:
- should be as persistent as possible
- a change of the ns is only needed if a change to the specs makes the new one not backward compatible.
Backward compatibility is defined as: processors aligning with a newer version of a standard must be able to process any document instance aligning to an older version of the standard.
Rule of thumb: any additions do not require a new namespace, deletions or changes (e.g. of property names) require one.

I hope this helps to take a decision regarding the next version of ODRL.

My personal note:
- we should be aware that the change of the ODRL namespace for properties is a quite substantial formal change, any ODRL 2.1 processor will not be able to process 2.0 policies.
- I see no need to reflect changes like for this version in a new namespace .../21/

Michael

Michael Steidl
Managing Director of the IPTC [mdirector@iptc.org] International Press Telecommunications Council
Web: www.iptc.org - on Twitter @IPTC
Business office address: 
25 Southampton Buildings, London WC2A 1AL, United Kingdom Registered in England, company no 101096



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mo McRoberts [mailto:Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 9:15 AM
> To: Renato Iannella
> Cc: ODRL Community Group (Contrib)
> Subject: RE: Updated ODRL in JSON DRAFT
> 
> > So we would not then really use the current URI
> (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/)
> > instead we would go to final versions using
> http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/21/
> >
> > Cheers...
> > Renato Iannella
> 
> I would still use /ns/odrl/2/, because that's a URI which is only used by
> anything 'new' (i.e., the RDF, the harmonised XML namespace, etc.)
> 
> I would further suggest that any post-harmonisation changes which actively
> break (rather than simply marking as deprecated) anything are given a new
> major version number and new URI -- although I would tend to avoid doing
> that in practice anyway. Changes which introduce new terms or are
> otherwise backwards-compatible should have a new minor version number,
> to allow conformance reporting (e.g., "this application understands ODRL
2.4
> or earlier fragments"), but maintain /ns/odrl/2/.
> 
> M.
> 
> --
> Mo McRoberts - Chief Technical Architect - Archives & Digital Public
Space,
> Zone 2.12, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
> MC3 D6, BBC Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
> 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E






The information contained in this communication is intended for the use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this 
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you have received this communication in error, and that any review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at +1-212-621-1898 
and delete this email. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]

msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 15:32:14 UTC