Re: Namespace of ODRL

We used a similar approach in our draft ontology and would strongly 
support multiple namespaces.
Other ontologies, e.g. KAoS []1 also use seperate namespaces.

Regards,

Stefan Becker, Benjamin Hück, Katharina Naujokat, Andreas Kasten and 
Arne F. Schmeiser


[1] http://ontology.ihmc.us/ontology.html


Am 17.07.2013 14:55, schrieb Michael Steidl (IPTC):
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mo McRoberts [mailto:Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:16 AM
>> To: Michael Steidl (IPTC)
>> Cc: Renato Iannella; <public-odrl@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Namespace of ODRL
>>
>>
>> On 16 Jul 2013, at 11:49, Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org>
> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> So I'm inclined to agree, and certainly RDF has the means to express that.
>>
>> As an alternative to the 'one namespace or two' question, here's an
>> alternative proposal:
>>
>> Split the vocabulary into (preferred prefix in parens):
>>
>> - A namespace for the model (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/...)
>>
>> - A namespace for ODRL-defined actions
>> (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/actions/...)
>>
>> - A namespace for ODRL-defined constraints
>> (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/constraints/...)
>>
>> - A namespace for ODRL-defined functions
>> (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/functions/...)
>>
>> - A namespace for ODRL-defined policy types
>> (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/policies/...)
>>
>> - A namespace for ODRL-defined relation types
>> (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/relations/...)
>>
>> - A namespace for ODRL-defined scopes
>> (http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/scopes/...)
>>
>> The remainder - which includes the "base" classes such as v:Scope, as well
>> as the operators, conflict terms and undefined terms - would be moved
>> into the model (because re-defining those as an extensibility mechanism
> isn't
>> particularly useful).
>>
>> While this is certainly a little more complex, it does mean that there's a
> very
>> clear split between things which constitute the *mechanics* of ODRL versus
>> the various instances/subclasses/subproperties which make up the
>> vocabularies, with each controlled vocabulary inhabiting its own namespace
>> to make the distinction clear.
>>
>> This would mean that, for example, v:Action would become odrl:Action
>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/Action>, while v:acceptTracking would
>> become act:acceptTracking
>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/actions/acceptTracking>.
>>
>> Each of the schema documents at
>> {actions,constraints,functions,policies,relations,scopes} would reference
> the
>> model, but the reverse would not be true (i.e., the model is completely
>> agnostic to the actual terms used, provided they are correctly-formulated,
>> not only conceptually, but implementation-wise too).
>>
>> How does this sound to people?
> I fully agree, this split up is very close to what IPTC has done for its
> news exchange formats: a namespace for the basic structure and for each
> value vocabulary a specific namespace. Also the split up of the ODRL
> vocabulary is ok, moving the operators to the basic structure namespace
> makes a lot of sense.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>