RE: Namespace of ODRL

Actually, this is a great illustration of my concern about having multiple namespaces. If Renato can make a slip (and nobody really notices it) how likely is that people who crafting ODRL statements in the wild will take the trouble of figuring out the correct namespace to use in each piece?

-----Original Message-----
From: Renato Iannella [mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 1:19 AM
To: Michael Steidl
Cc: Myles, Stuart; public-odrl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Namespace of ODRL


On 25 Jul 2013, at 19:14, Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org> wrote:

> - the split up of the Vocabulary namespace is no urgent need but I as 
> explained in earlier emails I think that it would help users to apply 
> terms from an ODRL Action Vocabulary to the @name of an ODRL 
> action/Action element and to apply terms from the ODRL Constraints 
> Vocabulary to the @name of a constraint element ... etc.

Doh! Made a mistake here ;-)

This line:
        <o:Constraint name="o:actions/spatial" operator="o:neq" rightOperand="urn:iso3166:CN"/> Should be:
        <o:Constraint name="o:constraints/spatial" operator="o:neq" rightOperand="urn:iso3166:CN"/>

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



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 Friday, 26 July 2013 13:33:30 UTC