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

I think the essential modification -by a RightsML profile - is to define
that the referenced parent does not have to be an ODRL policy. It would make
sense to have an identifier for a group of contracts of a new provider and
finding such an identifier should have the meaning: be aware that this
policy is an extension (or restriction, depends on how you view it) of a
policy in a written natural language document issued by that content
provider.

 

Further: we at IPTC already had a look into the ODRL specs for finding a way
to cover this issue. And the action reviewPolicy looks attractive too: if a
policy includes a duty that  an (optionally explicitly referenced) document
has to be reviewed while interpreting this policy could enforce the same
action on the receiver's side as pointing to a parent.

 

And maybe it needs a recommendation which of the two options for expressing
more-or-less the same should be used.

 

Michael

 

From: Renato Iannella [mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 11:05 PM
To: Myles, Stuart
Cc: Michael Steidl; ODRL Community Group
Subject: Re: Policy type "set" and granting rights (?)

 

 

On 23 Apr 2013, at 04:30, "Myles, Stuart" <SMyles@ap.org> wrote:





That would work. As long we don't need to actually specify the ODRL policy
that is the parent (since we will rarely have that, in practice).

 

Hmmmm....That would be inconsistent with the Model spec: 

 

"The inheritFrom attribute in the (child) Policy will uniquely identify (via
a UID) the (parent) Policy from which the inheritance will be performed."

 

That is, the Child policy is expected to point to it's parent.

 

You could, in the RightsML Profile override this, and also define a
inheritRelation attribute that defines these semantics...

 

Cheers...

Renato Iannella

Semantic Identity

http://semanticidentity.com

Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206