Re: ODRL Teleconference NOTES

As the one who raised the request for "more SKOS" my list of currently used
DC  and RDFS which may be replaced by SKOS is:
(having a look at
http://lodscope.parthenon.org.uk/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fptah.bencrannich.net%2F20
13%2FUNSTABLE%2Fvocab)

For the vocabulary:
"Title" -> dct:title -> skos:prefLabel
"Description" -> dct:description -> skos:definition

For the concepts:
"label" -> rdfs:label -> skos:prefLabel
"comment" -> rdfs:comment -> skos:definition
"scope note" -> skos:scopeNote

... and adding SKOS specific annotations:
- making the ODRL vocab a SKOS vocab:
<http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab#> rdf:type skos:ConceptScheme;
- making the ODRL terms SKOS concepts:
e.g. <http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab#acceptTracking> rdf:type skos:Concept;
- making ODRL terms members of the ODRL vocab:
e.g. <http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab#acceptTracking> skos:inScheme
<http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab#>;
etc.

Note: currently ODRL does not define something like an Action class.
(Therefore http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab#Action raises a 404)
But this would help to structure the ODRL vocab as currently it is a flat
list of Policy Types, Actions, Constraints and more which does not help to
get a quick overview.
On the other hand we have to ponder how to do this:
<http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab#Action> rdf:type skos:Concept;
<http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab#acceptTracking> rdf:type
<http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab#Action>; ???
The more radical step would be defining distinct namespaces for the
different vocabs, something like 
http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab-policytype#
http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab-action#
http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab-constraint#
http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab-partyrole#
http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab-partyscope#
http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab-relation#

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mo McRoberts [mailto:Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:05 PM
> To: Renato Iannella
> Cc: public-odrl@w3.org Group
> Subject: Re: ODRL Teleconference NOTES
> 
> 
> On Mon 2013-Apr-15, at 13:26, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> >
> > On 12 Apr 2013, at 18:26, Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> >> There is an open question as to whether the actions (in particular)
would
> be better modelled as a SKOS classification scheme than a set of abstract
> things. I think on balance I'm leaning towards "yes" (particularly as a
> classification scheme allows skos:broader and skos:narrower-type
> relationships). I don't feel hugely strongly on it, but more than happy to
> make the change if there's anything approaching a consensus that it'd be
an
> improvement!
> >
> > I agree, SKOS would improve semantic relationships, but would also come
> at a cost of needing to also understand SKOS (versus native RDF/OWL that
> Protege and other tools happily reason with..)
> 
> Certainly to realise the full "power" of a SKOS-modelled vocabulary that
> would be the case, but I'd contend that in this case.
> 
> * Expressing the actions as instances of skos:Concept would be no "worse"
> than instances of owl:Thing (something which doesn't understand any SKOS
> would still treat them as fairly non-descript, if labelled, instances)
> 
> * The basics of SKOS, particularly for classification hierarchies, are
*fairly*
> well-understood by tools
> 
> > Perhaps we should learn to crawl before walking ;-)
> 
> I agree entirely -- just trying to find the right balance :)
> 
> M.
> 
> --
> Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
> Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
> MC3 D4, 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 Tuesday, 16 April 2013 15:34:07 UTC