IDS Namespaces

[sebbader-sap]

The IDS Information Model introduced two main namespaces, ids (long: https://w3id.org/idsa/core/) for the classes and properties (aka. 'T-Box') and idsc (long: https://w3id.org/idsa/code/) for instances (aka. 'A-Box'). This separation is not sufficient anymore as:

1. Parts of the ids namespace will be in the scope of this specification, other parts not. Reviewing the protocol specification is therefore very hard.
2. The schemas (shapes) have an additional one (shapes: https://github.com/International-Data-Spaces-Association/InformationModel/tree/master/testing/). I'd even say this namespace is more a technical dept...
3. Versioning is not really thought through yet.

[sebbader-sap]

Proposal (see #1):

1. All mandatory elements identified in the "core" Catalog, Contract Negotiation, and Transfer Process specs are defined in a single "IDS" namespace. This new namespace has the prefix ids but the URI https://w3id.org/idsa/v<major-version>#
2. Certification elements and other classes/relations/instances are not defined in the core IDS protocol specifications and are put into a separate "IDSC" namespace.
   2a. idsc: https://w3id.org/idsa/v<major-version>/codes#
3. Another namespace contains shapes and schemas, https://w3id.org/idsa/schemas/v5/ or https://w3id.org/idsa/v<major-version>/schemas#

Regarding #2, those elements do not need to be supported for an implementation to be declared "protocol specification compliant." This is essential because we must allow compliant implementations without requiring a certification process.

[PeterKoen-MSFT]

I would prefer if we don't use the isda in the URL. having IDS as the prefix, as well as ids in the URL

[sebbader-sap]

@PeterKoen-MSFT can you propose a better URL?

[sebbader-sap]

Maybe https://www.w3.org/ns/ds# with ds as an acronym for 'dataspace'? Needs W3C's approval, of course.

[PeterKoen-MSFT]

I would love ds. Alternatively "dataspace" spelled out. As I think we should also aim for the creation of a new top level domain in future that could be .dataspace or .ds (.data would be nice, but has already been claimed). This TLD could be then used for example for DataspaceAuthorities and for easier addressing of services in a dataspace: e.g. catalog.mydataspace.ds

[jimmarino]

+1 on "ds"

[jimmarino]

On the proposal, why do we need three namespaces? Shouldn't two be sufficient, one for "core"/conformance and one for "certification"? I also don't think we need to define certification ourselves since that is beyond the scope of the standard (e.g., it would not be proposed to W3C).

[sebbader-sap]

why do we need three namespaces?

Depends on who 'we' is 😄.

• 'we' as the people writing in this repository: Completely agreed with you
• 'we' as IDSA: namespaces should follow one consistent pattern, look similar, have the same versioning scheme etc.

[ssteinbuss]

while 'ds' is a pretty good and short namespace, I would propose taking a longer one. A TLA is quickly conflicting and can be mixed up with other things. 'dataspace' could be a little long (but also cool), maybe something like 'dspace'

[sebbader-sap]

So it is 'dspace' until we come up with something better.