Re: Namespace of ODRL

On 16 Jul 2013, at 11:49, Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org> wrote:

> Renato, I think it is an agreement that "2" is used as the major version
> number.
>
> All:
> Coming back to only one or more namespaces: a user of terms from this
> namespace would like to know what a specific term is for - as Ray expressed
> this by the pan and ingredients distinction. If ODRL has a machine readable
> definition of all these terms then it must be considered how to express such
> a distinction.
> Even in the current Vocabulary is no qualifier if a term should be used with
> Policy Type, Actions, Constraints, Party and Role, or Asset and Relation,
> such a distinction is currently only made by the tables in the human
> readable HTML presentation.

So I'm inclined to agree, and certainly RDF has the means to express that.

As an alternative to the 'one namespace or two' question, here's an alternative proposal:

Split the vocabulary into (preferred prefix in parens):

- A namespace for the model (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/...)

- A namespace for ODRL-defined actions (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/actions/...)

- A namespace for ODRL-defined constraints (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/constraints/...)

- A namespace for ODRL-defined functions (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/functions/...)

- A namespace for ODRL-defined policy types (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/policies/...)

- A namespace for ODRL-defined relation types (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/relations/...)

- A namespace for ODRL-defined scopes (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/scopes/...)

The remainder — which includes the "base" classes such as v:Scope, as well as the operators, conflict terms and undefined terms — would be moved into the model (because re-defining those as an extensibility mechanism isn't particularly useful).

While this is certainly a little more complex, it does mean that there's a very clear split between things which constitute the *mechanics* of ODRL versus the various instances/subclasses/subproperties which make up the vocabularies, with each controlled vocabulary inhabiting its own namespace to make the distinction clear.

This would mean that, for example, v:Action would become odrl:Action <http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/Action>, while v:acceptTracking would become act:acceptTracking <http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/actions/acceptTracking>.

Each of the schema documents at {actions,constraints,functions,policies,relations,scopes} would reference the model, but the reverse would not be true (i.e., the model is completely agnostic to the actual terms used, provided they are correctly-formulated, not only conceptually, but implementation-wise too).

How does this sound to people?

M.

--
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.
-----------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 22:16:57 UTC