[Odrl-version2] RE: ODRL-Version2 Digest, Vol 13, Issue 5

[Vicky Weissman]

On 7 Feb 2006, at 02:03, Vicky Weissman wrote:

>> <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?

On 7 Feb 2006, Renato Iannella replied:
>If we looked at a use case that involves assigning rights to digital content
;-), then it does not make sense.
>
>Especially given the definition of Permissions:
>"The Permission entity indicates the actions that the Assignee/s is
permitted to perform on the Target asset"

I'm tempted to talk about targets that are online bank accounts (paying 1 EUR
= depositing 1 EUR) or online customer accounts (paying = paying off debt).
Actually, I'm more tempted to talk about targets that are avatars in
massively multiplayer games.  But, as long as we agree that splitting actions
into 2 categories is probably not the way to go, then I guess I should rein
in the creativity :-) 

On 7 Feb 2006, Renato Iannella Said:
> I would have thought that by allowing more constraint use, then the
semantics would be clearer ??
I don't understand this statement.  Could you clarify?

Thanks,
Vicky