[Odrl-version2] Followup on Legal stuff about contracts

[Susanne Guth]

Hi Renato,

thanks for the review. Please read my comments in line. New draft is
available @ 

http://odrl.net/2.0/WD-ODRL-Model-20060310.html

> 
> 
> Susanne - thanks for the update - great work.
> I have some minor editing but will leave that to the end.
> 
> Here are some more substantive questions:
> 
> 1 - Should we have a "Change History" as the table of contents says?  
> (or too many changes!)

Is absolutely required and has been added to the draft.

> 2 - On the Model, Permission, Prohibition, and Duty all have a  
> "tradeable" attribute. What is this for?
> 
Has to do with the negotiation and was discussed with Alapan in several
emails. It indicates if this entity is subject to negotiation or not. Draft
has been updated.

> 3 - On the Model, the "inherit" association on the Asset entity  
> probably is best as an attribute now.

I don't understand this comment please clarify.

> 4 - In the Rights Class Model, where we say "the Request/Ticket (etc)  
> must contain an Asset" should we say "...must contain at least one  
> Asset" ?
Agreed. Done.

> 
> 5 - In the Permission Model, we should say that since the Permission  
> must contain ONE Action, that multiple Permissions are also allowed.  
> Also, we say that the Permission must also contain ONE Asset - can it  
> be multiple??

No, there must not be multiple assets in one permission unless you can
identify several assets with one ID. Also there must not be multiple Actions
in one permission. That's a little bit of a draw back of the presentation
because it may make larger expressions very long. However, there is no
ambiguouty possible what a Permission refers to anymore.

> 6 - The Duty Model scenario examples have Action/Measure/Value shown,  
> but we only talk about Action and "Object" in the normative text?

Oh, thanks. That a mistake of course. I changed the duty elements, so now
they contain actions and objects. Have a look!

> 7 - Legal model - Alapan, need some text definitions here (thanks!)
> 
> 8 - I think we need to add wording to clarify the situation when  
> there are both Permissions and Prohibitions in the expression (and  
> where there is a direct conflict). I can work on that...

That would be great. Thanks.
 
> 9 - The Ticket Scenario - need to remove the Assignee party as this  
> is not part of a ticket

I changed the describtion here. I think it should be possible to identifier
an assignee. For example, if the ticket can only be executed by a specific
person.

> 10 - We need to add an Acknowledgments section at the end and list  
> all people (including from
> this WG) how have contributed to the document.

Done! I quickly did put the containers in. They need more semantic thought.
Any comments for containers?

So long
Susanne

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

"Feel free" mit GMX FreeMail!
Monat für Monat 10 FreeSMS inklusive! http://www.gmx.net