[Odrl-version2] RE: ODRL-Version2 Digest, Vol 13, Issue 3

[Vicky Weissman]

Hi All,

For what it's worth, I agree with Susanne.  I don't think the ODRL language
should have two categories of actions, one for duties and one for
permissions.  As Susanne says, it limits the flexibility of our language.  I
agree with her that it doesn't seem to be the sort of thing we should be
doing (are we going to restrict the language to prevent any statement that
seems odd?).  It also complicates the language.  Finally, from a practical
standpoint, I think finding an appropriate split would be very hard (maybe
impossible).  To see why, consider Alapan's motivating example:    

On 1 Feb 2006, at 01:43, Alapan Arnab wrote:

>
> But from purely an implementation point of view - if payment is an 
> action, wouldn't both the following code fragments be correct?
>
> <duty id="1" relaxed="true">
>    <payment>
>       <amount currency="EUR">1</amount>
>    </payment>
> </duty>
>
> <permission>
>    <payment>
>       <amount currency="EUR">1</amount>
>    </payment>
> </duty>

Is it really true that it would *never* make sense to have the second
statement?  Suppose that a school is collecting donations for a charity; the
school gives a prize to the student who collects the most money; and to
prevent the prize from going to the kid with the richest parents, there's a
rule that each donator is permitted to pay $1 (no more and, to minimize
administration costs, no less).  As another example, suppose a parent wants
to give her child money and the child doesn't want it (maybe the child feels
it makes him/her dependent, somehow less), so they work out an agreement that
the parent can pay the child $100 dollars per month.  I suspect that we can
play these sorts of games for almost any action split anyone can think of.  
 

Best,
Vicky