W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-odrl@w3.org > July 2012

Re: odrl-ISSUE-11: How to define anonymous policies [ODRL Version 2.0 Core Model (Public)]

From: Daniel Pähler <tulkas@uni-koblenz.de>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:45:54 +0200
To: public-odrl@w3.org
Message-ID: <3302190.pl70v1lc7y@tulkastle>
On Sunday 01 July 2012 15:20:23 Renato Iannella wrote:

> > [...] (In simple words: not a policy points
> > to the asset but the asset to the policy) A great practical advantage is
> > that the same policy could be used for many assets.

> Can this be supported by creating "Set" Policy Types?

Short answer: I don't think that it can be done with the "Set" Policy type. 
Instead, I think that a new profile has to be created.

Long answer: as far as I understand it, the Policy types defined in the Common 
Vocabulary serve two purposes. The first is to define the actual semantics of 
the respective Policy, e.g. an agreement has a completely different meaning 
than an offer. The second is to further constrain multiplicities that were 
defined in the Core Model. For example, the Core Model shows that a Permission 
can have "0..*" Parties, and for the Policy type "agreement", it is required 
that it has at least two Parties, namely Assigner and Assignee. Therefore, 
each agreement is still a valid ODRL 2.0 Policy according to the Core Model.

The problem is that the Core Model defines that each Permission or Prohibition 
must have at least one Asset. Changing something in the Core Model that does 
not simply refine it but actually conflicts with it should be done in a profile, 
I would say.

Greetings,
Daniel
-- 
Dipl.-Inform. Daniel Pähler

Institute for IS Research
University of Koblenz-Landau
Universitaetsstrasse 1
D-56070 Koblenz
Fon +49-(0)261-287-2644
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 06:58:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 4 July 2012 06:58:34 GMT