RE: Namespace of ODRL

I'm fine with the approach to make the vocabularies SKOS schemes and making
odrl:Action a subclass of skos:Concept - but then I propose considering to
make it a full SKOS Concept Scheme.

This is what our IPTC Controlled Vocabulary server delivers - as excerpt:

@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>.
@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#>.
@prefix scn: <http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/scene/>.

<http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/scene/>
rdf:type skos:ConceptScheme;
		skos:HasTopConcept scn:010100;
		skos:HasTopConcept scn:010200;
		skos:HasTopConcept scn:010300;
...........
		skos:HasTopConcept scn:012400.

scn:010100
	rdf:type skos:Concept;
  	skos:prefLabel "Portrait"@de;
  	skos:prefLabel "headshot"@en-GB;
  	skos:definition "Ansicht nur des Kopfes einer oder mehrerer Personen
oder von einem oder mehreren Tieren."@de;
  	skos:definition "A head only view of a person (or animal/s) or
persons as in a montage."@en-GB;
  	skos:inScheme <http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/scene/>.


scn:010200
	rdf:type skos:Concept;
  	skos:prefLabel "Halbfigur"@de;
  	skos:prefLabel "half-length"@en-GB;
  	skos:definition "Ansicht des Oberkörpers einer oder mehrerer
Personen"@de;
  	skos:definition "A torso and head view of a person or
persons."@en-GB;
  	skos:inScheme <http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/scene/>.

(To get this you have to apply the URL and set the http Accept header to
text/turtle)
  	
Michael


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mo McRoberts [mailto:Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 12:51 PM
> To: public-odrl@w3.org Group
> Subject: Re: Namespace of ODRL
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I've collected together the actions and moved them out into a separate
> document, using the new (proposed) namespaces:
> 
> http://ptah.bencrannich.net/2013/UNSTABLE/actions.ttl
> 
> My question at this point is this:
> 
> Should this be a SKOS Concept Scheme (and consequentially, should
> odrl:Action, the parent class of all of these, be a subclass of
skos:Concept)?
> 
> The various actions themselves *are* concepts, and this is a controlled
> vocabulary of terms -- on that basis I'd be inclined to say 'yes', but I'd
like to
> gauge views first.
> 
> M.
> 
> 
> On  2013-Jul-19, at 09:37, Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Okay, it seems like we're close to (if not have) consensus on this one —
> does anybody have any objections before I make the changes?
> >
> > M.
> >
> > On  2013-Jul-17, at 14:14, Stefan Becker <stefanbecker@uni-koblenz.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >> We used a similar approach in our draft ontology and would strongly
> support multiple namespaces.
> >> Other ontologies, e.g. KAoS []1 also use seperate namespaces.
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Stefan Becker, Benjamin Hück, Katharina Naujokat, Andreas Kasten and
> Arne F. Schmeiser
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] http://ontology.ihmc.us/ontology.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 17.07.2013 14:55, schrieb Michael Steidl (IPTC):
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Mo McRoberts [
> >>>> mailto:Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk
> >>>> ]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:16 AM
> >>>> To: Michael Steidl (IPTC)
> >>>> Cc: Renato Iannella;
> >>>> <public-odrl@w3.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> Subject: 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?
> >>>>
> >>> I fully agree, this split up is very close to what IPTC has done for
its
> >>> news exchange formats: a namespace for the basic structure and for
> each
> >>> value vocabulary a specific namespace. Also the split up of the ODRL
> >>> vocabulary is ok, moving the operators to the basic structure
namespace
> >>> makes a lot of sense.
> >>>
> >>> Michael
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 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 Friday, 19 July 2013 17:10:09 UTC