[Odrl-version2] comments regarding the last series of emails

[Alapan Arnab]

Hi,
Sorry - I have been meaning to reply to the ODRL emails ... so here are
my 2c for the last few emails ... (I have tried to keep it in
chronological order)

<Susanne 29 May>
Bottom line: I think we should stick with "one owner per asset". 
</Susanne>

Handling more than one owner per asset (as information) is not
difficult. However, validtating which owner can assign rights is more
difficult. Maybe, in this case we should change the definition of owner
as the logical entities that have the right to assign permissions.

<Susanne 29 May>
5.) I agree, that the negotiation process maybe requires more detail.
Alapan, how does the process look like, and how can we indicate
negotiable attributes? Did you already state that in one of your
documents? 
</Susanne>

I did outline the process in an earlier document, and that has been
subsequently refined a few times now ... I am currently refining it, 
so I can submit for consideration at the ACM-DRM workshop later this 
year ... I can post it once I am done.

In my opinion, any part of the license should be negotiable, and thus all elements should have a "tradable" attribute to indicate that it is not negotiable.

<Vicky 04 June>
Ah ha!  The problem is that I misinterpreted the role of requests.  I
thought a request was formed by an agent who wanted immediate access to
an asset (e.g., Alice requests to download the movie), rather than an
agent who wanted an offer to be made that would, if accepted, permit
access under certain conditions (e.g., Alice requests the movie company
to tell her the terms under which she can download the movie).
</Vicky>
It can work in the first way also. Alice requests to download a movie,
and the agent replies - yes, but with the attached set of conditions ...

<Vicky 04 Jun>
I think we would need some sort of processing algorithm that would take
the entire context (consumer is Bob Smith, asset is file f, maybe some
other info?) and the constraint as input; munge it to get an appropriate
database query such as "what is Bob Smith's age?"; and then replace
"age_consumer" with Bob's age.  Note that the problem is somewhat more
complex if the constraint is written as "age_of_consumer_is_at_least_18
== true".  If, instead, the constraint is written as "Age(user) >= 18"
then we at least know what the relevant part of the context is; we might
also be able to look up the information more easily, but I'm not
sure.       
</Vicky>
The choice of vocabulary is particularly important, and that could a
whole series of discussion on its own I think!

Alapan
-- 
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