ODRL Community Vocabulary

[riannella]

• A community-supplied set of general terms
• Have a few items to add to the vocab to kick-start the draft (see past discussions)
• What will be the namespace?
• Use the same ttl or different files ?
• Process to follow ?
• Who will be the Editors?
• Auto-generate from a ttl file ?

[bact]

On the namespace https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-odrl/2024Feb/0004.html

[vroddon]

I add @besteves4, for she volunteers to create a spreadsheet with all the terms that have been discussed.

[besteves4]

Hi, I created a spreadsheet here to manage the community vocabulary terms.

[riannella]

I think we should include in the Turtle, the same pattern of SKOS Collections for all the new Community Terms.

Such as this:

## SKOS Collections for Grouping related Commuity concepts.

<http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/#policySubClassesCommunity>
    a skos:Collection ;
    skos:prefLabel "Policy Community Subclasses"@en ;
    skos:scopeNote "ODRL Community Vocabulary Terms"@en ;
    skos:member :Preference  .

<http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/#partyRolesCommunity>
    a skos:Collection ;
    skos:prefLabel "Party Community Functions"@en ;
    skos:scopeNote "ODRL Community Vocabulary Terms"@en ;
    skos:member :issuedPolicy .

<http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/#actionsCommunity>
    a skos:Collection ;
    skos:prefLabel "Community Actions for Rules"@en ;
    skos:scopeNote "ODRL Community Vocabulary Terms"@en ;
    skos:member :create .

<http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/#constraintRelationalOperatorsCommunity>
    a skos:Collection ;
    skos:prefLabel "Community Constraint Operators"@en ;
    skos:scopeNote "ODRL Community Vocabulary Terms"@en ;
    skos:member :isNotA  ;
	skos:member :seq  ;
	skos:member :subclass .

I also suggest we continue using the same ODRL namespace URI.

[besteves4]

I think we should include in the Turtle, the same pattern of SKOS Collections for all the new Community Terms.

Agreed, I can add it to the turtle file.

I also suggest we continue using the same ODRL namespace URI.

@riannella is this possible? Or better yet, is it recommendable to do so, given that the terms under the http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ namespace were standardised, and the terms we are proposing here are not?

[riannella]

Yes, it is possible. The W3C recommendations terms are standardised. The URI is ours to extend. It makes it less confusing to use the same URI.

[riannella]

@besteves4 Can we also add a new row (at the top) to each table to indicate the "status" ? They should all be set to "Proposed" for now... Then we can call for agreement during future calls...