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

Re: odrl-ISSUE-12: Make asserting flexible values more flexible [ODRL Version 2.0 XML Encoding (Public) ]

From: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:49:37 +1000
Message-Id: <235BC39D-9B93-49EC-A3E0-0216D2A1F52E@semanticidentity.com>
To: ODRL Community Group <public-odrl@w3.org>

On 9 Nov 2012, at 19:41, Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org> wrote:

> a) to modify the ODRL requirement
> b) to overload the ODRL "pay" action by a RightsML "pay" action which does not have this mandatory need.
> c) to create a new "payamount" action which allows inline amounts

Michael/all - thanks for the feedback.

In trying to recall why we changed from specifying the payment in ODRL to an Asset (around 2010), I think we were focused on a "clean model".

However, I can see that the utility of specifying payments natively in ODRL has advantages to rightsML and others.

In going way back to the ODRL V2 Requirements [1], payments are mentioned (sec 1.10) and a Workshop paper gave examples of odrl payments [2].

I think the other requirement is that we defined semantics in our Vocabulary that cover temporal and payment constraints - and we support the former but not the latter (...this has come out of the current email discussion on license/lease/sell...).
And it would be good to specify (in our Schema) the core/common requirements for policy expressions.

Hence, I am now convinced that the proposal to add the new attributes to Constraint also support payments, and we remove the current requirement to specify payment Assets.

Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity
Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206

[1] http://odrl.net/2.0/v2req.html
[2] http://odrl.net/workshop2004/paper/odrl-guth-paper.pdf
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 01:50:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:45 UTC