[Odrl-version2] New role Assignees for Duties

[Susanne Guth]

Dear *,

after looking at your point in more detail, I see what you mean. The "assignees" role is missing. Please also note that I added an important semantic bit to the descriptions:

- "A Party entity can receive Permissions and Prohibitions by being the Assignee (consumer) of such. Note, the Assignee can also represent a group of people and/or legal entities, but only one member of the group receives the set of Permissions."
- "A Party entity can receive Permissions and Prohibitions by being the Assignees (consumers) of such. In this case, the Party entity must identify a group of people and/or legal entities. Each member of the group receives the same set of Permissionss and Prohibitionss [ODRL-REQ#1.13]."

With this we can express both cases (and now it is semantically clear): Only one of the group gets the permission AND every member of the group get the permission. The same descriptive text was added to Duties. And Duty now has three relations: Assigner, Assingee, Assignees.

So long
Susanne

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:51:13 +1000
Von: Renato Iannella <renato at odrl.net>
An: "ODRL Version 2.0" <odrl-version2 at odrl.net>
Betreff: Re: [Odrl-version2] Constraints on duties - I think I\'ve got it	now...

> 
> On 21 Jun 2006, at 04:28, Vicky Weissman wrote:
> 
> > Party=Alice
> > Perm=Download
> > Asset=F
> > Duty=d
> > Duty.Constraint=c
> > Duty.Relax = false
> >
> > means that Alice may download F if she has (1) fulfilled duty d at  
> > time t and
> > (2) at time t, constraint c holds.  So, if d = "pay 5 Euros" and c  
> > is "time
> > is before June 30, 2006", then Alice may download F if she has  
> > already paid 5
> > euros and that payment was made before June 30, 2006.
> >
> > Assuming this correct,
> 
> Yes...
> 
> > I wonder if duties should have (optional) consequences.  For  
> > example, maybe
> > the agreement owner would like to say "Alice may lock f.src; she  
> > should
> > return the lock within 24 hours, and, if she doesn't return the  
> > lock, then
> > she'll be charged one Euro a day".  More generally, relaxed duties  
> > allow
> > obligations to hold after the right has been granted/exercised, so  
> > I think
> > it'd make sense (and is often the case in practice) for there to be
> > consequences to unmet obligations.  What do you think?
> 
> I like this idea. We should introduce the "unmet" entity for Duties  
> (that can take any Action)
> 
> So your example might now look like:
> 
> Party=Alice
> Perm= lock
> Asset= f.src
> Duty= unLock
> Duty.Constraint= within 24 hours
> Duty.Unmet = EU1/day
> 
> When can then use the null case, that is "Duty.Unmet=null" to be the  
> same as Duty.Relax=true.
> Ie you can not meet the duty, but nothing will happen
> 
> > Party=Alice, Bob
> > Perm= download
> > Asset= F
> > Duty= pays 1 euro
> > Duty.Constraint= user is over 21
> > Duty.Relax = false
> >
> > This means (1) if Alice is over 21, then she may pay 1 euro and, if  
> > she pays
> > the euro, then she may download F.  The same is true for Bob.  So the
> > agreement is equivalent to one that says "Alice/Bob may download F  
> > if she/he
> > is over 21 and pays a euro".  That is, the agreement is equivalent to
> >
> > Party=Alice, Bob
> > Perm= download
> > Asset= F
> > Duty= pays 1 euro
> > Perm.Constraint= user is over 21
> > Duty.Relax = false
> 
> Your first example means that the person paying needs to be over 21,  
> whereas the second example
> means you need to be over 21 to download the file (both are valid  
> examples)
> 
> Now, we need to be clear on the multiple parties you have listed. We  
> have the concept of "assignee"
> and "assignees" in our model. The former is for a single party, and  
> the latter for multiple parties
> (although you identify that latter group with a single identifier)  
> and each of the members of that group
> receives the same set of Permissions and Prohibitions. (We should  
> extend that to Duties as it is not in the
> model yet).
> 
> So if we use Party.assignees=alice-n-bob-group-id, then each member  
> of that group would get the permission
> and be liable for the Duty, unless we use Duty.assignee=alice-n-bob- 
> group-id.
> 
> 
> > ----
> > (This one's really about parties v. individuals.)
> >
> > Party=Alice
> > Perm= download
> > Asset= F
> > Duty= pays 1 euro
> > Duty.Assignee = {Alice, Bob}
> > Duty.Beneficiary = {Charlie, Dan}
> > Duty.Relax = false
> >
> > The agreement says that Alice may download F if {Alice, Bob} has  
> > paid 1 euro
> > to {Charlie, Dan}.  Suppose Bob gives a euro to Charlie.  Then does it
> > necessarily follow that {Alice, Bob} has given a euro to {Charlie,  
> > Dan} and,
> > thus, Alice may download F?
> 
> Since you used "assignee" then yes.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> 
> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
> National ICT Australia (NICTA)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Renato Iannella
> ODRL Initiative
> http://odrl.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ODRL-Version2 mailing list
> ODRL-Version2 at odrl.net
> http://lists.odrl.net/mailman/listinfo/odrl-version2

-- 
Susanne Guth
susanne at odrl.net
ODRL Initiative
http://odrl.net/

Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl