- From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:45:05 -0800
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-credentials@w3.org
On 2018-02-13 6:07 AM, Manu Sporny wrote: > On 02/12/2018 03:27 PM, Steven Rowat wrote: >> So...perhaps ODRL can be integrated somehow with the DID now? > > Hmm, no, different technologies for different purposes. Fundamentally: Thank you very much for the concise summary. I understand now that ODRL happens at a different place. But I'm still foggy on your description of what makes LD-Object Capabilities different from what ODRL does (see next). > LD Object Capabilities can be used as tokens where an entity can > cryptographically prove that an entity granted them the authority to > perform a class of actions in a software system. But isn't what ODRL specifies the same as this? I.e.: "prove that an entity granted them the authority to perform a class of actions in a software system." Is the difference that ODRL is for granting authority in a different software system? One that's at a different logical level? Steven > > ODRL is useful as a mix-in for Verifiable Credentials. For example, if a > Verifiable Credential claims that you have a Netflix subscription, and > your subscription is expressed via ODRL, then you can use that > Verifiable Credential to get a Capability from Netflix that will allow > you to stream a Netflix movie on any device in the world w/o having to > log in (you will still need to prove, via your DID, that you are sitting > in front of that device). > > So, yes, all these things do fit together, but perhaps not in the way > that you were thinking. ODRL is not a replacement for Object Capabilities. > > -- manu >
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2018 16:47:58 UTC