[Odrl-version2] resumption of containers & model update

[Alapan Arnab]

Hi Susanne, everyone else
I am still working on the contracts issue - semester just started, so
academic staff are a little hard to get hold of.

A question on the model posted - I see the absence of the
"statement"/"ticket" etc. Is this feature removed? Or is this
incorporated in the type attribute?

If its the later, I have a slight problem (not only with the
implications for negotiations) - but for standard usage also, as it will
limit the comparability of different licenses. For example, it would not
be possible to offer a ticket and a contract on the same digital object
as their offers would look the same (i think ...)

If it's the former .. I have no problem with it ;)

Regards
Alapan
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 01:32 +0100, Susanne Guth wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> as you can see from my various emails this was an ODRL weekend for me :)
> 
> >From reading through the discussions I found the following:
> 
> 1.) we need containers
> 2.) we need prohibitions
> 3.) we need contractual details and negotition elements
> 4.) the model has simplification potential
> 
> I worked a little bit on the model that you can see attached. This is - of
> course - only a draft and no new v2 model.
> 
> 1.) Containers
> 
> I added a container element which is not properly related to the other
> elements. Container have the attributes 
> 
> BIND containing e.g. OR, AND
> TYPE containing e.g. "Container of Constraints"
> RELATEDTO containing the element that includes the container.
> 
> I think that we would have to carefully describe in our semantics what each
> container type means, so that we provide a chance to implement the language.
> 
> Container Example
> <o-ex20:constraint id="c01">  
>        <o-ex20:count>
>            <o-ex20:max>20</o-ex20:max>
>        </o-ex20:count>
>   </o-ex20:constraint>
> 
>          <o-ex20:constraint id="c02">  
>           <o-ex20:datetime>
>            <o-ex20:notLaterThan>31-12-2004</o-ex20:notLaterThan>
>           </o-ex20:datetime>
>          </o-ex20:constraint>
> 
> <o-ex20:container id="cont01" bind="or" type"constraint container">
>      <o-ex20:includes constraint="c02"/>
>      <o-ex20:includes constraint="c01"/>
> </o-ex20:container>
> 
> 
> 2.)
> 
> I kept prohibitions as they were. However, this issue need further
> discussion. The important question is if we can formalise the model with
> prohibitions in it... vicky I count on you here :)
> 
> 3.)
> 
> I added the negotiation and communication elements. Details (attributes must
> be discussed.
> 
> 4.) 
> 
> What do you guys think of removing the rights-expression-type level and
> instead using an attribute "TYPE" in rights to specify the semantics of the
> actual rights expression?
> 
> I have a problem with different hierarchies of RE elements, like in alapans
> approach - simply for negotiation. If somebody wants to use ODRL without the
> negotiation part, then the hierarchies do not make sense at all. An aim
> should really be to keep the negotiation part independent of the remaining
> model. 
> 
> If a RE grants next rights, for example, then these nextrights have to be
> defined in a new rights expressed. RE ids would have to link the various
> rights expressions. This would have the advantage that a "nextRight" could
> more easily become part of a new agreement (I think).
> 
> Comments?
> 
> -- 
> Susanne Guth
> susanne at odrl.net
> ODRL Initiative
> http://odrl.net/
> 
> DSL-Aktion wegen groer Nachfrage bis 28.2.2006 verlngert:
> GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos* http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
> _______________________________________________ ODRL-Version2 mailing list ODRL-Version2 at odrl.net http://lists.odrl.net/mailman/listinfo/odrl-version2
-- 
Alapan Arnab
Data Networks Architecture (DNA) Laboratory
Department of Computer Science
University of Cape Town
Rondebosch, 7700
South Africa

Tel: +27 21 650 3127
Web: http://people.cs.uct.ac.za/~aarnab/
Blog: http://idiots-mind.blogspot.com
----------
"You must always believe that you can be the best, but you must never
believe you have achieved it".
Juan Manuel Fangio