[Odrl-version2] NEW ODRLv2 Model Semantics - Working Draft

[Steven Rowat]

Hi,

I've gone through the v2 Model more carefully, and would like to add some comments (in some cases I'm echoing Vicky's concerns; others are different).

First, overall, let me say I believe it's more likely ODRL will succeed if this v2 Model document reaches out to people who, like me, are not experts in the model but who have a strong interest in knowing how ODRL works. And at almost all points in the document I was able to follow, and I believe most people could. And for that, congratulations. Because I know it's not easy writing so I can understand it.  :-)

1. Overview
Vicky:  >I recommend expanding the 5 bullets in the Overview to explain each
>document....

Agreed.

2.1 Rights

Vicky:  >I think of a statement as a complete idea; fragments are a set of
>phrases.  So I wonder if "fragments" wouldn't be a better name for the
>"statement" rights expression....

Agreed. I also thought the word "Set" might be considered instead of "fragments". But I think either would be better than "Statement" for the purpose.

"REQUEST": 
I believe this sentence is confusing:
"The request supports rights expressions that are soliciting the terms and conditions of usage over content from a consuming party".

It could possibly mean "soliciting...from a consuming party"; which is not correct (I think!)  "The consuming party" is doing the soliciting, not being solicited, for the terms of usage. So you would better say:

**The request supports rights expressions that are solicitations from a consuming party of the terms and conditions of usage over content.**


I also find the last sentence of the Requests section confusing; not easy to tell who is the former and latter; and in fact it's not sentence; perhaps it could be rewritten as:

**The request may also contain the Party entity with Assigner role if this is known; the Assignee(s) Party being responsible for requesting a set of terms and conditions for use over content owned by the Assigner Party.**

2.2 Asset

"In the case where the Parent Asset rights contains stateful expressions, then the inheritance relationship can indicate if the state values are also inherited or not."

What is a "stateful expression"?  Could you perhaps give a very brief example of one at this point - even just a mention (in parentheses)?

2.4.1 Action
Vicky: >I didn't understand the discussion on Transfer Rights or the Exclusive flag
for actions.>

I had my problems with these also. 

First, I didn't understand point of the whole paragraph on Transfer Rights, maybe because I got off to a bad start with the first sentence, which I think might be missing a crucial "that"; or need to be amended. The first sentence is:

"The Transfer Rights entity is a type of Action that indicates rights that can be further allocated as part of the containing Permission must not exceed those identified in the rights expression statement."

The way I've tried to make sense of this is to add a [that] as follows:

**The Transfer Rights entity is a type of Action that indicates [that] rights that can be further allocated as part of the containing Permission must not exceed those identified in the rights expression statement.**

However, even with this emendation, I don't understand the two sentences that follow it.

As well, the last sentence ends with "...other parties (i.e. the consumers of consumers)". This seems nonsensical, or at least cannibalistic (<grin>). Perhaps *...(ie. the secondary consumers)* would be better?

2.4.2 Constraint
Vicky: <I am concerned that defining a constraint to be a mathematical term
needlessly limits ODRL's expressive power.>

Agreed.

2.4.3 Duty
Vicky: <I'm also concerned that a duty is needlessly limited and, as a result, we
cannot have duties such as "if a user runs a particular beta program, then
she must return a user evaluation">

Agreed. 

--Note also a typo, "who is responsible for fulfill the Duty" should be "for fulfilling the Duty" (the same construction as the sentence following it, which is correct).

2.7 Communication
This section appears to define a Communication entity and a Negotiation entity, but I'm unclear about their relationship. Specifically, what aspects are there in the Communication entity? All the listed ones are in the Negotiation entity. Yet the definition of the Communication entity says it adds 'negotation aspects' to a Rights entity. Are they in a hierarchical arrangement?

2.8 Container

I have not fully grasped how containers are meant to function in ODRL. Perhaps you could add a text example, or a figure?


Example: Offer and Transfer Rights (figure 7)

Maybe it's just me, but I found myself staring at the "Offer and Transfer Rights" figure (7) for half an hour, and I was still confused. It's sort of like a map of the London Tube System - one can start anywhere, go anywhere; but how to decide where to start? And which way to go in the next step? And the next? The number of choices is bewildering.
        I feel that some guiding principle needs to be more obvious, a sorting by time flow, or by a level or hierarchy (sorted visually), or by people; or something. The color scheme and layout, as it is, doesn't do this for me; somehow it all seems mixed together.
        Perhaps there could be a placing of some of the boxes, or data from boxes, inside others to group them meaningfully? - For example, the "Rights Offer" box could be taken as a starting point, and be larger, at the left side or top, and 004 Duty, 002 Object, and Object5 Action seem to me to be so much a part of this Offer that their boxes could be inside it; in fact so could P05 Party who makes the offer. This would remove 4 boxes from the visual stream, and group some of the Offer's key parts inside it. If the same grouping is done with the rest of the boxes, perhaps they could be reduced to three or four main ones (with the ones inside being either boxes or sublists).  
        I suggest this not because I'm attempting to make it "look nice". But because I frankly don't understand what's going on in this diagram and I think these changes might help it. 


Best regards,

steven rowat


>Dear Working Group Members,
>
>
>we proudly present the new working draft of the ODRL v2 Model Semantics -
>the core piece of ODRL Version 2. 
>
>http://odrl.net/2.0/WD-ODRL-Model.html
>
>Thank you for all the supportive work that has been done by the working
>group during the last year. Please find a list of changes withing the
>document.
>
>Every new comments will be highly appreciated.
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
web site: <http://www.rowatworks.com>
mailto:sc at rowatworks.com