Re: odrl-ISSUE-1 (renato): Namespace for Vocab terms [ODRL Version 2.0 XML Encoding (Contributors) ]

Hi Renato,

It has been a while since I have worked with XML namespaces, but I don't
think this approach breaks the model in concept.

I do have two practical concerns though:

1. One feature of Namespaces is that it allows for validation; e.g. check
that in the Namespace defined "o", there is something defined as "target".
Depending on how the schema is constructed, quite a bit of structure
validation can take place. By moving to URI, we loose this feature.

2. The idea of a URI is that it is resolvable to some resource on the
Internet. In the proposed approach, we would have to create some sort of
resolvable resource for each URI. My concern in this regard, relates to
what is the envisaged resource that will be resolved to. For the given
example, target is a directory (in HTTP convention), so what will target
contain?

Regards,
Alapan

Blog: http://idiots-mind.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Life's a gamble - take a chance


On 4 December 2011 14:09, ODRL Community Group Issue Tracker <
sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

>
> odrl-ISSUE-1 (renato): Namespace for Vocab terms [ODRL Version 2.0 XML
> Encoding (Contributors) ]
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/track/issues/1
>
> Raised by: Renato Iannella
> On product: ODRL Version 2.0 XML Encoding (Contributors)
>
> At the Barcelona meeting we agreed to have two XML Namespaces, one for the
> V2 Core Model and one for the V2 Common Vocabulary.
>
> I have been thinking that it might be better to not define an XML
> Namespace for the Common Vocabulary, but instead, simply define them as
> URIs, as they are not ever XML elements - only the values of attributes.
>
> It also seems that the general approach (e.g. microdata, RDF, and Linked
> Data) is to simply use URIs for everything.
>
> For example, instead  of this:
>
>  <o:permission>
>        <o:asset uid="http://example.com/asset:9898" relation="o:target"/>
>        <o:action name="o:publish"/>
>  </o:permission>
>
> We would have this:
>
>  <o:permission>
>        <o:asset uid="http://example.com/asset:9898" relation="
> http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/target"/>
>        <o:action name="http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/publish"/>
>  </o:permission>
>
> (of course, the "o" would be an XML Namespace)
>
> Any views?
>
>
>
>
>