[Odrl-version2] More Requirements

[Stephane van Hardeveld]

Hi,

> Here are some more requirements we need to consider:
>
> 1 - Offer/Agreement Model Only
> The current model of only supporting Offers and Agreements
> needs to be reviewed. There maybe cases where this is not
> relevant and just a generic set of rights is only required
> to be expressed. There is also the possibility of supporting
> a "Request" which is from a Consumer to a Rights Holders.
>
 Agreed!
>
> 2 - Exclusive Permission
> At the moment a Permission can be stated to be “Exclusive”
> with the use of an attribute. This could be expressed using
> a constraint or other means.

 Yes, I tend to like solutions without attributes :-). Besides, exclusivity
 is in itself a constraint, so why not express it that way?

> 3 - ForEachMember Constraint
> The forEachMember constraint allows members of entities to
> be assigned individual constraints (using URI and id/idref).
> This could be expressed via other mechanisms as well as
> supporting other options (eg: any Member, one Member, all
> members, etc).

 This would be very useful

> 5 - Revoke Model
> The current Revoke model is under-utilised. It needs to be
> reviewed with the new V2 data model to determine if it is still
> required. Revoking licenses may only make sense in specific
> implementations of trust models.

 If it is necessary, it could be implemented via a ticketing system. One
agrees to a contract during contract negotiation, and the consumption
takes place via tickets. If a revocation system is needed, this can be
accomplished by checking with a DRM Management system before
sending out a new ticket. Maybe it should be included in the usage
scenarios?

> 6 - Security Model
> The current Security Model is very explicit. It needs to be
> reviewed to determine if it is best to be more open with the
> details being provided in community Profiles (eg OMA Mobile DRM).

 And ISMACrypt?

> 10 - Inheritance Model
> The inheritance model is used in the OMA DRM specification.
> It would be useful to review its use to ascertain if any
> improvements/refinements are necessary.

Maybe some specific inheritance models/specs may arise in the
usage scenario discussions

> 11 - The WEMI Model
> ODRL supports the Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item model
> to describe layers of content (from the Library community).
> It would be useful to review this to ascertain if any
> improvements/refinements are necessary. It maybe better, for
> example, to incorporate this with Inheritance and/or Linking
> between assets.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Renato Iannella
> ODRL Initiative
> http://odrl.net

Regards,
Stephane van Hardeveld