[Odrl-version2] ODRL Version 2.0 - XML Encoding

[Michael Steidl (IPTC)]

Just to add to the differences between CURIEs and QCodes:

* CURIES are simply an abbreviation of URIs, so one could do this:

pref1=http://www.example.org/special/codes/vocab123/
CURIE = pref1:code4711

pref2=http://www.example.org/special/codes/
CURIE = pref2:vocab123/code4711

Thus: two CURIEs for the same URI.

* while for QCodes there is always an identifying URI for the scheme, and
the code of the concept is appended to it to make the URI for the concept,
like the "pref1" example above.

Thus: always only one QCode for a concept URI.

Michael
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: odrl-version2-bounces at odrl.net [mailto:odrl-version2-
> bounces at odrl.net] On Behalf Of Myles, Stuart
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 2:08 PM
> To: ODRL-Version2
> Subject: Re: [Odrl-version2] ODRL Version 2.0 - XML Encoding
> 
> > The RDFa spec uses CURIES, which are "similar" to Qnames, and provide
> some processing notes:
> >  http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_curieprocessing
> 
> Yes - I believe that IPTC's QCodes are similar to RDFa's CURIEs.  One
> obvious difference, of course, is that you don't need to put the QCode
> inside square brackets, whereas CURIEs do require them.  This is how
> they solve the ambiguity problem that Michael referred to for fields
> that can contain either a URI or a QNAME - CURIEs adopt a different
> syntax.
> 
> For example, this is a URI
> 
> mailto:smyles at example.com
> 
> This is a CURIE
> 
> [mailto:smyles at example.com]
> 
> IPTC's standards avoid the ambiguity problem by declaring each field to
> *either* contain a URI *or* a QCodes, so there is no ambiguity when you
> parse "prefix:suffix".
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Stuart
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: odrl-version2-bounces at odrl.net
> [mailto:odrl-version2-bounces at odrl.net] On Behalf Of ri at odrl.net
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:55 PM
> To: ODRL-Version2
> Subject: Re: [Odrl-version2] ODRL Version 2.0 - XML Encoding
> 
> 
> On 25 Oct 2010, at 23:20, Michael Steidl (IPTC) wrote:
> 
> > 3) By your rule below: as this prefix cannot be resolved using the
> > namespace declarations the string has to be a URI. Conclusion
> correct?
> 
> Sure...if it also conforms to the syntax for http URIs (eg ""http:"
> "//"
> host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]]")
> 
> And also check for other URI schemes:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html
> 
> I am not sure if it is an error/forbidden/bad-practice to define an XML
> namespace prefix as the same as a URI scheme name?
> 
> The RDFa spec uses CURIES, which are "similar" to Qnames, and provide
> some processing notes:
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_curieprocessing
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Renato Iannella
> ODRL Initiative
> http://odrl.net
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Odrl-version2 mailing list
> Odrl-version2 at odrl.net
> http://odrl.net/mailman/listinfo/odrl-version2_odrl.net
> 
> 
> 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 e-mail. Thank you.
> [IP_US_DISC]
> msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Odrl-version2 mailing list
> Odrl-version2 at odrl.net
> http://odrl.net/mailman/listinfo/odrl-version2_odrl.net