Re: Namespace of ODRL

it looks excellent.

Can we advance how would it be the namespace of profile, and the 
mechanisms to extended the vocabulary?

Víctor

El 19/07/2013 12:51, Mo McRoberts escribió:
> 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.
> -----------------------------
>


-- 
Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informática
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 91336 3672
Skype: vroddon3

Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 08:26:41 UTC