Re: Core Model Clarification - Asset and Party

On 6 Sep 2014, at 22:47, Alapan <alapan@gmail.com> wrote:

> A question on party - should we not stick to "legal entity"? Otherwise, the license may not be enforceable (as a legal document, not technically).

I don't think that describing the party as a "legal" party would have significant difference when its comes to "enforcement" as a legal agreement.
The key definitions (if used by a court of law) would be what is the purpose of the Policy (ie the Policy Types)

For example, we currently define the Agreement as:
"Policy expressions that are formal contracts (or licenses) stipulating all the terms of usage and all the parties involved"
with comment:
"Must contain at least the Party entity with Assigner role and a Party with Assignee role. The latter being granted the terms of the Agreement from the former."

I think a court of law would interpret "Party" in the traditional "legal" sense. 

Also, looking at the Creative Commons legalcode [1] (which is all about the law ;-) they define You and Licensor  simply as "individual(s) or entity(ies)"

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

[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode