AW: Namespace of ODRL

My summary is:
- I'm not aware of any use of RightsML in a production environment
- I see a couple of IPTC members with a high interest and a first round of
testing of RightsML
- at IPTC we would have to change all our existing examples and
documentation - and we are currently working on new examples
- as we are launching a next initiative of fostering the use of RightsML
over summer it would be essential to see decisions by ODRL as soon as
possible.

A short comment on the proposed changes of the namespaces:
- I can't see the need for changing the case of the elements of the ODRL 2.0
namespace - to make them more OWL-like?
- the split up of the Vocabulary namespace is no urgent need but I as
explained in earlier emails I think that it would help users to apply terms
from an ODRL Action Vocabulary to the @name of an ODRL action/Action element
and to apply terms from the ODRL Constraints Vocabulary to the @name of a
constraint element ... etc.

Michael


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Myles, Stuart [mailto:SMyles@ap.org] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2013 22:59
An: Renato Iannella
Cc: public-odrl@w3.org Group
Betreff: RE: Namespace of ODRL

Given that RightsML 1.0 is in an "experimental phase", it is still possible
for IPTC to make changes.

One of the goals for RightsML at this point is to drive adoption. What do we
think multiple namespaces will do for ease of implementation? I'm a bit
worried it will make things harder for people (since they'll need to always
be looking up which namespace to use, as they construct their ODRL
documents).

Regards,

Stuart


-----Original Message-----
From: Renato Iannella [mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:35 PM
To: Myles, Stuart
Cc: public-odrl@w3.org Group
Subject: Re: Namespace of ODRL


On 22 Jul 2013, at 22:07, "Myles, Stuart" <SMyles@ap.org> wrote:

> That's a good point. Do we need to do something formal, since the XML
Encoding has already been agreed, right?

We can make the changes to the Drafts [1,2] and then we as a group can
approve these as final specs.

The only obvious impact would be any early adopters of V2.

I can only see RightsML as the prime candidate for that.
How will the IPTC handle this change?

Cheers...
Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity
http://semanticidentity.com
Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206

[1]
http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/2-0-xml-encoding-constraint-draft-chan
ges/
[2]
http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/2-0-common-vocabulary-constraint-draft
-changes/


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

Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 09:15:42 UTC