Re: Policy type "set" and granting rights (?)

On 17 Apr 2013, at 02:09, Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org> wrote:

> The last sentence of the Comment says: “No privileges are granted to any Party.”
> -          What does “privilege” mean? This term occurs three times in this Vocabulary document, always stating that no privileges are granted. The Core Model document does no use this term.

"Privilege" was used as a term to indicate if "rights" have actually been transferred by the contents of the Policy to parties.
For example, a Offer type also does not grant "privileges" but an Agreement type does.
If there is a better term, then we can update it.

> -          If this a privilege is something like a permission this definition of “set” causes a problem: we understand that a policy of type “ov:set” is a kind of generic type covering the other types (like agreement, offer, request …), a refinement of the semantics are achieved by the context of using the policy. From our view this context should be able to express granting rights, e.g. if an ODRL policy is added to an IPTC NewsML-G2 News Item (this is an XML document)  it must be possible to define: this policy grants rights to the receiver of the News Item.


Actually "set" was defined to be used for non-assignment of "rights" such as a nextPolicy policy (see Sec 4.6 here [1])
Also see the text in Section 3.1 here [2].

In the RightsML examples (eg [3])  you use "set" but are assigning rights...so I would change the type to agreement.

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

[1] http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/two/xml/#section-5
[2] http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/two/model/#section-3
[3] http://dev.iptc.org/RightsML-10-Example-Redistributing-Photos