Re: Paper analysing ODRL 2.0

Thanks Katharina,

I am solely concerned with the OWL serialization of the official 
specification of ODRL2.0
However, I have found your document highly enriching, and cannot help 
quickly commenting it.

Some critiques are insurmountable, such as a possible bad choice of some 
term names (Section 4.2, par1).
However, can any of the improvements be reflected in the OWL (or 
possibly JSON) serialization without contradicting the core model?
For example, the paper refers some ambiguous behaviours (ex. last 
paragraph of Section 4.2). Can't they be documented?
I firmly believe that a set of examples can force a /de facto /common 
understanding of what might have been unprecisely defined.

Complementary documentation can also solve other problems. For example 
the semantic of Actions in 4.6 would be a matter for a different 
document/profile/addendum which in no way would contradict the core 
specification.  Or in another example (last par. in Section 4.1):
"/They noted that the Core Model draft of 2005 [IG05] has a lack of 
expressiveness. Policies cannot be considered as equivalent to legal 
contracts//
//as they lack some information like date and location of the agreement 
and are thus not legally binding/"
Can't a couple of DublinCore properties be added for this? (or digital 
signature, or whichever addendum is needed)
Again, if this is going to appear recurrently as a pattern, its use can 
be recommended and this would not suppose a change in the specification 
but an addition in the documentation.
...

Regards,
Víctor

El 10/07/2013 10:07, Katharina Naujokat escribió:
>
> Dear all,
>
> we would like to share the research paper on ODRL 2.0 [1] mentioned in 
> our last mail with the community. The paper presents the results of an 
> in-depth analysis of some drawbacks concerning the syntax and 
> semantics of ODRL 2.0 and outlines possible solutions. These include 
> proposals to simplify the Core Model of ODRL to be better understood 
> by new users as well as to prepare ODRL for the usage with encodings 
> other than XML, e.g., ontologies. We will present our results at the 
> Virtual Goods & ODRL 2013 conference [2] in September. Based on our 
> paper and further research we will develop an alternative concept for 
> ODRL. This concept will be modelled as an ontology in the following 
> months. Still we will take part in the discussion of the current draft 
> ontology for ODRL 2.0.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stefan Becker, Benjamin Hück, Katharina Naujokat, Andreas Kasten and 
> Arne F. Schmeiser
>
> [1] 
> <http://userpages.uni-koblenz.de/~stefanbecker/ODRL_2_0_Revisited.pdf 
> <http://userpages.uni-koblenz.de/%7Estefanbecker/ODRL_2_0_Revisited.pdf>>
>
> [2] <http://www.virtualgoods.org/2013/>
>


-- 
Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informática
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 91336 3672
Skype: vroddon3