RE: Namespace of ODRL

Given that RightsML 1.0 is in an "experimental phase", it is still possible for IPTC to make changes.

One of the goals for RightsML at this point is to drive adoption. What do we think multiple namespaces will do for ease of implementation? I'm a bit worried it will make things harder for people (since they'll need to always be looking up which namespace to use, as they construct their ODRL documents).

Regards,

Stuart


-----Original Message-----
From: Renato Iannella [mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:35 PM
To: Myles, Stuart
Cc: public-odrl@w3.org Group
Subject: Re: Namespace of ODRL


On 22 Jul 2013, at 22:07, "Myles, Stuart" <SMyles@ap.org> wrote:

> That's a good point. Do we need to do something formal, since the XML Encoding has already been agreed, right?

We can make the changes to the Drafts [1,2] and then we as a group can approve these as final specs.

The only obvious impact would be any early adopters of V2.

I can only see RightsML as the prime candidate for that.
How will the IPTC handle this change?

Cheers...
Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity
http://semanticidentity.com
Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206

[1] http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/2-0-xml-encoding-constraint-draft-changes/
[2] http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/2-0-common-vocabulary-constraint-draft-changes/


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 Wednesday, 24 July 2013 20:59:56 UTC