Report vs Notify

We've struggled to agree on the distinction between the actions Notify and Report. Both are common "terms of the trade" and their meanings can overlap. Can we salvage the distinction? The editors and chairs offered to sift through all the proposals and make a recommendation.

We heard five "dimensions of difference" between the terms:

  1.  Frequency: notifications are often ad-hoc; reports are often regular
  2.  Structure: notifications are often un-structured; reports are usually structured
  3.  Unit of Count: notifications rarely refer to a unit-of-count; reports often do
  4.  Relates to: notifications refer to an event while reports regularly describe a relevant state of affairs
  5.  Sender: notifications are mostly sent by the provider; reports are usually made by the consumer.

All these "mostly"s, "often"s, and "usually"s warned us that the territory is strewn with exceptions. But what struck us was that the fourth formulation, distinguishing between events and states of affairs, didn't seem to need these qualifications, and furthermore, seemed to support all the other distinctions.

So here is our recommendation:


md:Notify

Sub-class of odrl:Action

The debtor makes the creditor aware of a relevant event (defined by the action scope).

  *   Where the action scope is md:Usage, the debtor makes the creditor aware that they have started using the asset.
  *   Where the action scope is md:ResonableSuspicion, the debtor makes the creditor aware that they have a reasonable suspicion that the asset is being misused.


md:Report

Sub-class of odrl:Action

The debtor provides a report to the creditor on a relevant and on-going state of affairs (defined by the action scope).

  *   Where the action scope is md:Controls, the debtor reports on their implementation of access controls.
  *   Where the action scope is md:Usage, the debtor reports on their usage of the asset as specified in the duty.

We hope this works for everyone. Let's discuss and vote at our next meeting.

Ben