Re: Reaction and questions to new docs

Hi Renato,


>
>> On 12 Mar 2015, at 06:53, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>> I guess ODRL might need some additional space for non-IPTC examples, such as the wiki as Renato suggested.
>> I wish I could help, but I'm afraid the only thing I can offer is the sort of discussion we're having now, and share our example data, when we end up using ODRL. For the moment we're focusing on simple things...
>
> Examples are always good to share....add them  here if you like: https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/wiki/Use_Cases
> And then post for discussion...


OK, I'll keep it in mind if I see something interesting passing by!


>
>> As a matter of fact, my question on labels and documentations was maybe about even more informal types of text than NewsML-G2's "usage terms". Just a simple name for a rights statement (as the title at [1]), and a brief definition or scope note!
>> We're actually considering skos:definition and skos:scopeNote from the SKOS ontology for the notes about the rights statement, and skos:prefLabel or dc:title for their label.
>
> This is why we did not try to specify any properties for "documentation"...there are plenty of existing vocabs and communities will choose their preferred option. :-)
>
>

On the other hand for something as benign as labels we would have gladly followed your practice!
This reminds me of SKOS. For some class, e.g. concept scheme, we didn't make properties nor formally recommended one, but all our example point to the same one (dc:title)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-skos-primer-20090818/#secscheme

Anyway I understand your position: all this adds to the core work of the spec...

Best,

Antoine

Received on Friday, 13 March 2015 12:38:02 UTC