Re: Namespace of ODRL

On 19 Jul 2013, at 18:09, Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org> wrote:

> I'm fine with the approach to make the vocabularies SKOS schemes and making
> odrl:Action a subclass of skos:Concept - but then I propose considering to
> make it a full SKOS Concept Scheme.

That's almost exactly what I had in mind :)

M.

>
> This is what our IPTC Controlled Vocabulary server delivers - as excerpt:
>
> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>.
> @prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#>.
> @prefix scn: <http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/scene/>.
>
> <http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/scene/>
> rdf:type skos:ConceptScheme;
>               skos:HasTopConcept scn:010100;
>               skos:HasTopConcept scn:010200;
>               skos:HasTopConcept scn:010300;
> ...........
>               skos:HasTopConcept scn:012400.
>
> scn:010100
>       rdf:type skos:Concept;
>       skos:prefLabel "Portrait"@de;
>       skos:prefLabel "headshot"@en-GB;
>       skos:definition "Ansicht nur des Kopfes einer oder mehrerer Personen
> oder von einem oder mehreren Tieren."@de;
>       skos:definition "A head only view of a person (or animal/s) or
> persons as in a montage."@en-GB;
>       skos:inScheme <http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/scene/>.
>
>
> scn:010200
>       rdf:type skos:Concept;
>       skos:prefLabel "Halbfigur"@de;
>       skos:prefLabel "half-length"@en-GB;
>       skos:definition "Ansicht des Oberkörpers einer oder mehrerer
> Personen"@de;
>       skos:definition "A torso and head view of a person or
> persons."@en-GB;
>       skos:inScheme <http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/scene/>.
>
> (To get this you have to apply the URL and set the http Accept header to
> text/turtle)
>
> Michael
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mo McRoberts [mailto:Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk]
>> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 12:51 PM
>> To: public-odrl@w3.org Group
>> Subject: Re: Namespace of ODRL
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've collected together the actions and moved them out into a separate
>> document, using the new (proposed) namespaces:
>>
>> http://ptah.bencrannich.net/2013/UNSTABLE/actions.ttl
>>
>> My question at this point is this:
>>
>> Should this be a SKOS Concept Scheme (and consequentially, should
>> odrl:Action, the parent class of all of these, be a subclass of
> skos:Concept)?
>>
>> The various actions themselves *are* concepts, and this is a controlled
>> vocabulary of terms -- on that basis I'd be inclined to say 'yes', but I'd
> like to
>> gauge views first.
>>
>> M.
>>
>>
>> On  2013-Jul-19, at 09:37, Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, it seems like we're close to (if not have) consensus on this one -
>> does anybody have any objections before I make the changes?
>>>
>>> M.
>>>
>>> On  2013-Jul-17, at 14:14, Stefan Becker <stefanbecker@uni-koblenz.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
>>> Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
>>> MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
>>> 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
>> Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
>> MC3 D6, 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.
>> -----------------------------
>
>
>


--
Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
MC3 D6, 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 Friday, 19 July 2013 18:39:21 UTC