RE: Namespace of ODRL

Today I've tested the SKOS Player [2] by combining two IPTC vocabularies of
about 1300 terms each (named Media Topics and Subject Codes).
- in our original CV the terms/concepts have individual namespaces: I merged
them all into one namespace = the discussed ODRL setup
- the two schemes (CVs) have their individual identifiers - and the SKOS
definitions which terms/concepts belong to which scheme.
(Find a zipped version of the Turtle file attached)

The results are ok:
- after loading the Turtle file with the combined vocabs SKOS Player
indicates that two schemes have been found
- for creating of a tree display one can select which scheme should be used
- the created tree is ok - find them attached as PDF rendition.

The only issue I came across is the interpretation of skos:broader vs
skos:broadertransitive  - see http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L2413
The makers of SKOS made there a substantial change in the final
specification document over the drafts and apparently also the SKOS Play
makers did not get aware of that - or there are different interpretations of
how skos:broader and how skos:broadertransitive  should be used.
(The practical issue was: the Turtle output from our CV server applies
skos:broadertransitive while  the SKOS Player only accepts skos:broader and
considers skos:broadertransitive  as unknown.)

In short: SKOS Player creates a usable human view on vocabularies of terms
from a single namespace. Thumbs up.

While trying to have another look at the http://www.essepuntato.it system
I've got errors that connections time out.

Michael


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renato Iannella [mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:10 AM
> To: Michael Steidl (IPTC)
> Cc: public-odrl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Namespace of ODRL
> 
> 
> On 22 Aug 2013, at 01:03, Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org>
wrote:
> 
> > Hi Renato, a human-readable/understandable rendition raises my
> concerns. A
> > human has to translate the rights expressions of a party and they need
an
> > easy access to such vocabularies. Ok, you can create a stand-alone
> > documentation about your vocabularies but this extends the efforts in
> > maintaining the vocabs: update the machine readable rendition, update
> the
> > human-readable documentation.
> 
> Hi Michael, as Mo pointed out, this is certainly the plan to automate the
> documentation process.
> 
> We are using LODE [1] at the moment, which is not the best, but seems to
be
> the only one available (!)
> 
> I have looked at SKOS Play [2] and it might be another option, as we can
> "document" the key relationships in SKOS
> and use this tool to auto-create the human-readable documentation....
> 
> Cheers...
> Renato Iannella
> Semantic Identity
> http://semanticidentity.com
> Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
> 
> [1] http://www.essepuntato.it/lode
> [2] http://labs.sparna.fr/skos-play/home
>