Re: Namespace of ODRL

On 6 Aug 2013, at 05:28, Benjamin Hück <bhueck@uni-koblenz.de> wrote:

> we are surprised about the decision to use a single namespace for them ODRL Ontology. 

Benjamin, I think a single namespace can still meet your requirements:

> First, using different namespaces for the basic structure and for each
> set of vocabulary terms eases the process of managing these terms.

Yes and No ;-) Given the nature of rdf/owl ontologies, loading a single namespace or
multiple namespaces into common editors (like Protege, TopBraid Composer, etc) makes no
difference to the editing/managing the terms etc

> Different namespaces would help to get a very clear distinction between
> the different vocabularies. It is not surprising that other ontologies
> such as KAoS [1] also use separate namespaces.

There are pros and cons for both, and many similar example of ontologies using one namespace
(eg schema.org, SKOS, PROV...)

> Second, the use of different namespaces reduces the possibility of name
> clashes. For example, a term X in the action vocabulary can be
> distinguished from a different term X in the constraint vocabulary.

There should not be cases of name clashes in our case, as for example, Actions will always be verbs
and constraints Nouns.

> Third, each namespace can be used as a URL providing exactly those terms
> associated with the namespace. For example, a namespace unifying all
> actions can also be used as an URL to access all action terms.

This still holds true with a single namespace, as all terms would be subclasses/subproperties of a parent term.
(or in our case, individuals of the same class)
Hence, an editor can see all the relevant terms based on the expression in the ontology.

> Finally, the use of ODRL should not get more complicated when using
> different namespaces. Instead, different namespaces can even help the
> process of creating ODRL policies. A policy editing tool could easily
> distinguish between actions, constraints, and other terms based on their
> namespaces.

See above comment.

>  Thus, we suggest discussing the namespace modifications for a
> second time and not just decide on it.


I suggest we look at how the single namespace looks in the first draft of the ODRL Ontology Spec, then we can have further discussion if required. 

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

Received on Thursday, 8 August 2013 04:13:04 UTC