Re: Encoding of ODRL in JSON

Hi all,

JSON-LD supports only one *default* vocabulary (which makes sense). For
anything which is not in the default vocabulary, you should explicitly
specify the namespace, if you want to be fully compliant or it will default
to the.. well.. default vocabulary. Since ODRL uses two different URIs, one
for the Common Vocabulary and one for the Core Model (the namespace of
which is actually specified only in the XML documentation as far as I could
see), I opted to make the examples letting the Common Vocabulary be the
default vocabulary and then explicitly indicating the namespace for the
other terms used from the Core Model.

Does that make sense?

But I agree with Mo that having a single namespace prefix URI would make
authoring somewhat easier.

Sincerely,
Jonas




On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Myles, Stuart <SMyles@ap.org> wrote:

> I admit, I hadn't noticed that the URLs were different (and specific to
> JSON). I suppose that (somewhere else?) sameAs definitions could be
> asserted between these and the equivalent ODRL URLs. But I don't really see
> the benefit of having different URLs for each encoding (XML, JSON, OWL,
> YAML ...)? So, unless there is one, I vote that we have a single set of
> URLs for use within all ODRL encodings.
>
> I didn't think that JSON-LD could only support a single vocab. If that was
> true, then there would be no particular benefit of using the JSON-LD
> context mechanism, since then we couldn't use, say, RightsML specific
> vocabularies or PLUS specific mixed in with ODRL specific. Again, I'm far
> from a JSON-LD expert, so those who are please chime in where I'm going
> wrong.
>
> I thought that we wanted to establish a JSON encoding of the ODRL model
> which takes advantage of the advantages of JSON, but that - to the greatest
> extent possible - it should be equivalent to the expression of a particular
> ODRL construct as any other encoding?
>
> Regards,
>
> Stuart
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mo McRoberts [mailto:Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 3:28 AM
> To: Renato Iannella
> Cc: Jonas Öberg; Myles, Stuart; Jim Earley; public-odrl@w3.org
> Subject: 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.
> -----------------------------
>
>
> 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
>
>