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

A typical use case for RightsML (and hence ODRL) is to be able to communicate restrictions within the context of an existing contract.

For example, a client of AP might be contracted to take a feed of photos. Let's pretend that feed consists of hundreds of photos a day. For a particular photo within that feed, we need to be able to communicate that it is not allowed to be used by newspapers in the UK. Another photo might require a mandatory credit of the originating agency (e.g. the European Photo Agency). Given that these are not agreements in themselves but are instead to be interpreted as a sort of "exception" or particular set of permissions, restrictions or constraints that must be observed for a particular piece of content, doesn't "set" make the  most sense in that situation?

Regards,

Stuart



From: Renato Iannella [mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 1:54 AM
To: Michael Steidl
Cc: ODRL Community Group
Subject: Re: Policy type "set" and granting rights (?)


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


The information contained in this communication is intended for the use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this 
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you have received this communication in error, and that any review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at +1-212-621-1898 
and delete this email. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]

msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938