[Odrl-version2] RE: ODRL-Version2 Digest, Vol 7, Issue 2

[Stephane van Hardeveld]

Vicky Weissman wrote:
> Hi Renato,
> 
> Thanks for the clarifications :-)  From them, I've drawn the following
> conclusions, which may or may not be right.  Please let me know if I'm on the
> wrong track.  
> 
> The first observation is that the flags in ODRL are used to state
> ``agreements'' (in the English sense) that cannot be written in ODRL.  More
> specifically, agreements written in a natural language between assigners and
> assignees often give the permissions and obligations of both parties.  This
> could include the statement that the assigner is not permitted to give anyone
> but the assignee a particular right (e.g., distribution rights).  Since ODRL
> agreements discuss only the permissions and obligations of the assignee(s),
> we need a flag to capture the common ``agreement'' that binds assigners.
> Similarly, because each agreement mentions only one asset, we need a flag to
> capture the portion of an ``agreement'' that says `if an assignee a may do an
> action c to an asset s, then a may do c to every subpart of s'.
> (Alternatively, we can fix the language so that this statement is implicit.)
> I suspect that a better solution would be to extend ODRL so that the flags,
> which feel like hacks, are unnecessary, even though they might still be
> included for ease of use.

I am not completely up to steam with this discussion, but it looks to me 
that we have a problem here. ODRL should be capable to express as broad 
as possible (all?) possible digital formal agreements on content between 
parties. It seems unwise to include an (informal?) flag which then may 
be reinterpreted or even mis-interpreted. Which of the two will take 
precedence?

> The second observation is that ODRL draws a somewhat jagged line between what
> is `covered' in the language and what is external to it.  For example,
> negotiations between a perspective assigner and a perspective assignee can be
> captured in ODRL through offers and requests.  But the consequences of
> violating policies are outside ODRL's scope, as are the agreements between
> assigners (e.g., agreements about which owner can create agreements governing
> access in Asia).  I don't have a good intuition for why the line should be
> drawn where it is being drawn.  

I do not follow you here. Do you mean ODRL does not allow for the unique 
description of parties? I believe ODRL permits all kind of 
identifications, building upon the knowledge and understanding of other 
groups more involved in this matter. As for the consequences of 
violations, what do you mean? ODRL describes offers and permissions etc. 
  Violations of the terms mean the offer or right should not be granted.


> 
> As an aside (and I apologize if I sound like a broken record, but), it seems
> like offers and requests are just partial agreements.  There's one type of
> Rights entity, namely an agreement, and people can write partial agreements
> to advertise possible agreements, request an agreement with certain features,
> serve as a template, etc.
> 
> <V1> "... how do we determine what's allowed/forbidden by a set of
> agreements? "
> <R1>
> This is a good question and always asked for ODRL...I will ask a few more
> "logicians" to see if there is a practical answer.
> <V2>
> Do you want me to take a stab at this?  (I wouldn't be able to do a formal
> write-up anytime soon, but could give some options with pros/cons.)  
> 
> Best,
> Vicky
I agree a formal statement on this would be more than welcome (I did not 
follow the whole discussion, I will try to do this this weekend.). It 
seems that ODRL needs a formal semantic description, besides the 
syntactical one?

Stephane van Hardeveld