RE: Namespace of ODRL

I've strongly promoted two different namespaces for the ODRL structure and
the vocabularies prior to the release of version 2.0, the reasons are:

-          At least I hope that the ODRL structure will be quite stable,
therefore the definition of terms in this namespace will be stable and thus
a list of all members of this namespace will be stable.

-          The vocabulary will be (and should) be more lively, integrating
new requirements. And it could be managed much easier by having a distinct
namespace: it should be possible to access the namespace URL and get a list
of all terms of the vocabulary. Doing the same for a unified URL one would
get a mix of structure elements and vocabulary terms - not easy to sort out.

-          This split could also be understood that http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/
is the namespace for RDF predicates while http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab#
<http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab>  is the namespace for RDF objects.

 

Re alapan: changing only a single character of a namespaces means changing
the namespace. Therefore http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/2012-04-28/ is different
from http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/2013-07-04/ - and I've never seen another way
to version a namespace.

 

And what I've learned about namespace maintenance: change them only if there
is a very strong need for that as it makes many things incompatible, many
processor not working anymore etc.

 

Michael

 

 

Michael Steidl

Managing Director of the IPTC [mdirector@iptc.org]

International Press Telecommunications Council 
Web:  <http://www.iptc.org/> www.iptc.org - on Twitter
<http://www.twitter.com/IPTC> @IPTC

Business office address: 

25 Southampton Buildings, London WC2A 1AL, United Kingdom

Registered in England, company no 101096

 

 

 

 

From: Alapan [mailto:alapan@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2013 9:38 AM
To: Renato Iannella
Cc: public-odrl@w3.org Group
Subject: Re: Namespace of ODRL

 

I think it would make sense to have a consistent value for namespaces. I
would however propose that we add versioning to namespaces (perhaps by
date), thus allowing newer additions to namespaces without necessarily
impacting deployments in the field.

 

Alapan

On Thursday, July 4, 2013, Renato Iannella wrote:

I would support a move to a single namespace. The question is, which one.

 

For XML we use  http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ for the model and direct URLs for
the vocab: http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab#<term>

 

We have (tentatively) used http://w3.org/ns/odrl/model#
<http://w3.org/ns/odrl/model>  and http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab#
<http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab>  in the Ontology.

 

We could reuse one of the above and put model/vocab together, or create a
new one for both.

We could easily do either of these for the Ontology/JSON work (as these are
new) but then need to consider the XML work (that is, how widely, V2 XML has
been deployed)

 

Cheers...

Renato Iannella

Semantic Identity

http://semanticidentity.com

Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206

 



-- 
Blog: http://idiots-mind.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Life's a gamble - take a chance