[Odrl-version2] resumption of containers & model update

[Steven Rowat]

Hi Suzanne,

My reaction is that it will be much better if a 'case 1' and 'case 2' can be avoided, and there can be a consistent way to set up Permissions and Prohibitions default/overrides that will handle all situations. (At this point, I feel the same way about Alapan's most recent solution; that having two major types of dealing with Per/Pro is courting trouble).

But if we go with Case 2, Suzanne, as you suggest, as the only one, the wording as you've set it out still isn't clear to me as follows:

What happens in the conflict situation (where the Rightsholder sets both Permissions and Prohibitions, perhaps accidentally at different times, and they conflict)? Perhaps this could be solved by making one by default always the override - it could be either the Permission or the Prohibition, it doesn't matter, as long as it's consistent and the Rightsholder learns that this will happen.

So this might be solved with the following additions [in square brackets]:

>Case 2.) Permissions AND Prohibitions are allowed: In this world we could
>state:
>
> "Permissions are what you are allowed to perform on the target **and nothing else**"
>
> "Prohibitions are what you are explicitly NOT allowed to perform on the
>target **[UNLESS it is set as a permission, in which case it is allowed] and anything else is still not allowed, [UNLESS it is set as a permission, in which case it is allowed] "

Or, it could be the other way around, with the UNLESS'es in the Permission, and the Prohibition as the overrider. 

steven