Re: Question about ODRL 2.0 Common Vocabulary

I think the model is quite easily extended and requires little to no 
(mandatory) schema extension.  Since each vocabulary term is inherently 
a URI, it's quite easy to create new semantic terms simply by applying 
what amounts to a different namespace to the term.  For example, say you 
needed a new semantic for derivatives for your organization.  All you 
need a new URI similar to the following:  
http://www.example.com/odrl/action/derivative

Since the current action structures support virtually any URI patter, it 
shouldn't require any additional schema changes

Most of the current implementations will support that.  I hope that 
helps

Jim

------ Original Message ------
From: "Agnese Farinelli" <agnese.farinelli@studenti.unimi.it>
To: public-odrl@w3.org
Sent: 2/25/2015 4:44:28 AM
Subject: Question about ODRL 2.0 Common Vocabulary

>Good morning,
>I wrote you this email for clarify, if I am allowed, a few doubt about 
>ODRL 2.0 Common Vocabulary and the possibility to extend this 
>vocabulary with dedicated profiles. In your ODRL 2.0 Common Vocabulary 
>final specification 
>(https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/two/vocab/#section-3) I read that 
>the possibility to extend the Common Vocabulary is concrete but I 
>didn't find any technical implementation for this kind of extension 
>(differently, I found all the informations what I need about the 
>extension of Core Model in the Core Model concrete XML Schema). I 
>forget to tell you that I am an Information Technology student in 
>University of Milan: my purpose is to conduct a research about ODRL 1.1 
>and ODRL 2.0 for my graduation thesis, with some practical example 
>about real and study cases. I need to extend the ODRL 2.0 Common 
>Vocabulary with some specific permissions and constraints (and other 
>stuff, of course) what are more adapted to define licences over my 
>study cases.
>So, my question is: where can I find a concrete example about Common 
>Vocabulary extension? Something like an .xsd file for ODRL 1.1 where I 
>can use something like the ODRL 1.1 SubstitutionGroup to define new 
>permissions or constraints. Always if this is possible, because I found 
>several technical reports and specification documents about ideas or 
>projects for future Community Profiles, but I didn't find any examples 
>or implementations of this kind of projects.
>Thanks a lot for your attention, and I ask you to forgive me for my bad 
>english.
>I am waiting for an answer.
>My best regards.
>
>Farinelli Agnese