- From: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:58:21 +1000
- To: "Myles, Stuart" <SMyles@ap.org>
- Cc: ODRL Community Group <public-odrl@w3.org>
On 13 Nov 2013, at 02:48, Myles, Stuart <SMyles@ap.org> wrote: > So, where does that leave the idea of ODRL Profiles? http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/two/vocab/#section-3 That section specifically talks about "Declare your communities namespace" as being one of the things that you should do in creating a profile. Profiles would remain unchanged, in that, they would still need to define a namespace for any of their additions. In thinking back...I suppose we separated the model from the vocab as the tools we used then directed us down that path. We used UML for the model, and "text" for the vocab...and it seemed natural (then) to map these into 2 different XML Schemas. As time progressed, and as we see now with ontologies...its all ends up the same, that is, a collection of related concepts that you manage. The question being, in one namespace or two for us now... Cheers... Renato Iannella Semantic Identity http://semanticidentity.com Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 07:58:44 UTC