Re: Encoding of ODRL in JSON

There's no reason why the terms can't use identical URIs to the OWL/RDFS schema. However, it would certainly make authoring easier (for both JSON and otherwise) if there was a single namespace prefix URI.

M.

On  2013-Jul-03, at 03:28, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com> wrote:

> Thanks Jonas/Stuart.....
>
> One question from example three:
>
>>       "@vocab": "http://w3.org/ns/odrl/vocab#",
>>       "permission": "http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/json#permission",
>>       "asset": "http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/json#asset",
>>       "action": "http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/json#action",
>>       "prohibition": "http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/json#prohibition",
>
>
> Is the reason we use the "json" namespace because JSON-LD can only support one vocab?
>
> If so, should we look at a single namespace for ODRL?
>
> Apart from this, after you make the changes to the current draft, I can then publish as an "Draft Report".
>
> Cheers...
> Renato Iannella
> Semantic Identity
> http://semanticidentity.com
> Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
>


--
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 Wednesday, 3 July 2013 07:28:15 UTC