RE: Namespace of ODRL

I very nearly agree with Mo, except my ordered list of preferences would  be:

1) Using the same namespace URI(s) across all serialisations, be they RDF-derived or not

To me, the different syntaxes are simply different (and largely equivalent) ways of making assertions about the same concepts. So, I can see no valid reason why the ids for concepts should differ between syntaxes?

2) Encoding the major version (2) into the URI(s), but only the major version

I concur entirely with Mo.

3) Using the same base URI for both the vocab and the model

I don't see this as being as crucial, in part because the model and the vocabulary are distinct in my mind. Not least  because ODRL v2 is described as being a framework, where particular industries can supply their own verticals, as needed. Perhaps this was necessary to state, in order to help spread the idea of ODRL but in practice isn't necessary, since few industries are creating their own specific vocabulary (except for RightsML http://dev.iptc.org/RightsML - and even this only differs from the common vocabulary in very few ways).

Regards,

Stuart



-----Original Message-----
From: Mo McRoberts [mailto:Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:59 AM
To: Renato Iannella
Cc: Michael Steidl; <public-odrl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Namespace of ODRL

Hi all,

FWIW, I have a very strong preference for (in order of importance to me):

1) Using the same base URI for both the vocab and the model

I don't think believe the fact that one part is likely to be updated more frequently than the other meaningfully impacts this to any significant degree -- we shouldn't be introducing backwards-incompatible changes in either case.

2) Using the same namespace URI(s) across all serialisations, be they RDF-derived or not

Unless there's an exceptionally good technical reason to do otherwise, the fully-qualified URI of any element, class, property, instance, etc., should resolve to its machine-readable description in the same way regardless of whether the source used the XML schema, the RDF ontology, or whatever else gets cooked up over time.

3) Encoding the major version (2) into the URI(s), but only the major version

If we break compatibility, it's no longer ODRL 2.0, so should have a different namespace. Whether this is achieved by date or version number I'm not at all fussy.

However, doing this (purposefully) comes at significant cost, so the default should be to be compatible until it's not possible to do so. Properties/classes/entities shouldn't ever be removed, but may be marked 'deprecated' or 'archaic' or similar over time. The effect of having multiple versions of a schema in common use is not especially pleasant, however compatible they might be.

In a perfect world, I'd recommend that http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ is used throughout, but that's contingent upon being able to arrange for http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/foo to redirect (via 303) to the machine-readable schema. I'd settle for http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2# if that proves impossible...

(An exception to this would be unstable draft versions).

M.

On  2013-Jul-15, at 03:31, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com> wrote:

>
> Thanks Michael....what if we had "http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/" as the XML Schema Namespace (as we have now) for the Model....
> and used "http://w3.org/ns/odrl#" as the Ontology namespace for 
> _everything_ (as the SemWeb works be not making any difference between 
> schema and instance, and XML Schema does the opposite)
>
>
> Cheers...
> Renato Iannella
> Semantic Identity
> http://semanticidentity.com
> Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
>


--
Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development, Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E



-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
-----------------------------



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 Monday, 15 July 2013 12:50:57 UTC