AW: Generic permissions and prohibitions

Hi Michael,

 

we addressed that issue in our paper published in September 2013 [1]. We
called it "default modality". If the policy states that anything not listed
in the policy is forbidden, there is no need for prohibitions (and the other
way round for permissions). One possibility is to define this default
modality for each policy and use either only permissions or prohibitions. 

One problem however remains: The ODRL 2.0 model connects the asset not
directly with the policy but with a permission/prohibition. Therefore there
could be different default modalities across one policy, one for each asset.
This can be solved with a separate default rule for each asset defining the
specific default modality.

 

In our variant of ODRL ("kappa") an action hierarchy groups actions into
sets [2]. On top of this hierarchy is the "act set" that covers every
possible action. The idea was that you can permit or prohibit this act set
and then state more precisely for the subsets and single actions if there
are exceptions from this default modality. The set idea was introduced to
simplify the formulation of policies for the user. For precision a policy
still contains every action explicitly. The sets would only be used for
example by editor GUIs. In our case there is still a need for a default
modality for actions not listed in the policy. Would sets be used directly
as actions, the rule containing the "act set" would be the default rule.

 

Greetings from Koblenz

 

Katharina and Arne

 

[1] http://userpages.uni-koblenz.de/~stefanbecker/ODRL_2_0_Revisited.pdf

[2] http://userpages.uni-koblenz.de/~knaujokat/ActionModel.png

 

 

Von: Michael Steidl (IPTC) [mailto:mdirector@iptc.org] 
Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 18:03
An: public-odrl-contrib@w3.org
Betreff: Generic permissions and prohibitions

 

All:

 

I've been asked by lawyers about specific permissions (and prohibitions) and
their relationship to "any other action" in a wide context:

 

Example: a permission to use a photo for printing is granted by an ODRL
policy. This policy includes the single permission and nothing else. 

This raises the question - at least for lawyers: what about all the other
actions in the ODRL vocabulary (and maybe beyond it)? Are they implicitly
prohibited?

 

At first sight I was not able to find a rule for that in the ODRL Data Model
- maybe I missed a paragraph.

 

To solve this issue I see two options:

i/ To write down in the ODRL specs that the default state is: "nothing is
permitted", only explicit permissions lift that. The exact role of a
prohibition in such a context would need a good explanation.

 

Ii/ To define a super-generic "any-other-action" action and to recommend
using this as explicit prohibition with each policy.

 

Thanks for your comments,

 

Michael

 

Michael Steidl

Managing Director of the IPTC [mdirector@iptc.org]

International Press Telecommunications Council 
Web: www.iptc.org - on Twitter  <http://www.twitter.com/IPTC> @IPTC

Business office address: 

25 Southampton Buildings, London WC2A 1AL, United Kingdom

Registered in England, company no 101096