Re: Generic permissions and prohibitions

On 3 Jun 2014, at 02:03, Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org> wrote:

> 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?

I can recall discussing this on the list (many years ago)...but reviewing the current Core Model, I can see no explicit statement.

The general idea as that you can only do what was explicitly stated, and nothing else

Even in Version 1.1 we had "A Permission that is not specified in any Rights Expressions is not granted"

> 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.

Yes, we should do this.

Cheers...
Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity
http://semanticidentity.com
Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206