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.


Cheers...
Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity
http://semanticidentity.com
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 13 November 2012 01:50:01 GMT