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

[Renato Iannella]

On 18 Jun 2005, at 01:25, Vicky Weissman wrote:

> 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.

Vicky - I assume you are using the "exclusive" flag as an example here.
An alternative would be to use the Duty and Prohibition elements to 
express this (as Duties can
apply to ALL parties in an agreement). Hence, we could express 
"exclusive" as
a Duty on the Assigner, Prohibiting the assignment of the same 
permission to anyone else.

> 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.)

Alternatively, we could repeat all the permissions/actions on Asset S 
to all
of the parts of Asset S - but that would be tedious?
The "model" is that if we assign permissions to Asset S, and Asset S is 
made up of
multiple parts, then our permissions are applicable to all these parts.
Is there an alternative model?

> 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.

Vicky - I think you can cover the entire Rights value chain with ODRL.
For example, a rights holder can assign distribution rights to A for 
Asia
and B for Europe. Then A and B - as assigners - can then further slice 
these
down to others (C, D, E, F, G). These these parties can assign their 
rights
(assume based on geography) to end users (X, Y, Z) to final consumption 
rights,

The question is, do we mandate that X, Y, Z know about the agreement 
between A, B
and C, D, E, F, G - and also the agreement between the original RH and 
A, B ?

My impression is that we don't. Communities will decide at what level 
the entire
Rights value chain needs to be exposed and to whom.

> <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.)

Yes please!

Cheers...  Renato