RE: odrl-ISSUE-18: Single URI Namespace

Having a single namespace URI seems OK to me.

Regards,

Stuart


-----Original Message-----
From: Renato Iannella [mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:26 PM
To: ODRL Community Group
Subject: Re: odrl-ISSUE-18: Single URI Namespace

Following up this issue [1] and the last meeting minutes [2] on advantages/benefits of a single URI namespace and implications of not adopting for ontology

Advantage: you don't have to remember which term/class/property is in which namespace. Part of the reason for unifying them was precisely that - there are terms where it's easy to forget which one they live in. As a side-effect, of course, everything's in one place as a human, too.

Negative: if it grows significantly, it may become unwieldy... but that seems a bit unlikely given the current size of the ontology - certainly not problematic today with tool support.

Another indicator is that all of the latest Ontologies from W3C (eg PROV, ORG, DCAT, Data Cube) are all using a single URI namespace, and one of our strategic directions is to promote our specs thru the more formal W3C process (eventually).

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

[1] http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/track/issues/18
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-odrl/2013Nov/0033.html


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, 6 March 2014 20:25:40 UTC