RE: Namespace of ODRL

Renato, I think it is an agreement that "2" is used as the major version
number.

All:
Coming back to only one or more namespaces: a user of terms from this
namespace would like to know what a specific term is for - as Ray expressed
this by the pan and ingredients distinction. If ODRL has a machine readable
definition of all these terms then it must be considered how to express such
a distinction. 
Even in the current Vocabulary is no qualifier if a term should be used with
Policy Type, Actions, Constraints, Party and Role, or Asset and Relation,
such a distinction is currently only made by the tables in the human
readable HTML presentation.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renato Iannella [mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:06 AM
> To: Mo McRoberts
> Cc: Michael Steidl; <public-odrl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Namespace of ODRL
> 
> 
> On 15 Jul 2013, at 17:58, Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > In a perfect world, I'd recommend that http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ is used
> throughout, but that's contingent upon being able to arrange for
> http://w3.org/ns/odrl/2/foo to redirect (via 303) to the machine-readable
> schema. I'd settle forhttp://w3.org/ns/odrl/2# if that proves
impossible...
> 
> We can get the redirect ok..
> 
> We can even drop the "2" if we plan to keep the same namespace URI for
> longterm (and deprecate over time)....
> 
> Cheers...
> Renato Iannella
> Semantic Identity
> http://semanticidentity.com
> Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206

Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 10:50:56 UTC