RE: Reaction and questions to new docs

Hi Antoine,

> Keeping it short: I am contacting you on behalf of this project: http://dp.la/info/about/projects/getting-it-right-on-rights/

A very interesting project!

> But it is really not easy for us understand how to use ODRL, even with the enhanced documentation.

One way that we've tried to address this within IPTC's RightsML profile of ODRL is to provide more extensive how-to documentation and implementation guides. (We're in the process of updating the site to conform to ODRL 2.1. All of the examples are 2.1 but some of the text still talks about ODRL 2.0):

http://dev.iptc.org/RightsML

> One example is for representing human-readable labels and definitions for Policies.
> https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/#section-21 says [Other attributes MAY be added to the Policy entity to support additional functions and requirements. Typically, these will be from different community vocabularies. For example, to indicate the issued date or valid dates of the Policy entity, use of the Dublin Core Metadata Terms would be recommended.
> ]
> This sounds like this would suits the case of labels and documentations, but still it's surprising to find nothing in the current ODRL given that these use cases seem quite fundamental.

I believe that ODRL is saying that human-readable policy statements are outside of the scope of the standard. My understanding is that the suggestion to use Dublin Core Metadata Terms is trying to suggest one way you can have human-readable policies without duplicating what has already been done in other standards. For example, IPTC's NewsML-G2 allows you to express human readable terms (in whichever languages you prefer) in an XML field called "usageTerms". But NewsML-G2 allows you to embed a machine-readable policy using ODRL (or other machine-readable languages, if you prefer).

> Another example is that we want to express right statements like "an organisation has been allowed to authorise educational uses"
> but we have not much clue how to do it in ODRL really. Would "educational" be an ODRL Profile?

We documented a similar situation, where the purpose of the use is constrained using the ODRL "purpose" http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/purpose - our example documents a purpose of "mobile" use. But you could have an "educational" purpose. (Within the news industry, we typically have constraints like "editorial" use only, which would be expressed with a similar constraint but a different rightOperand value).

http://dev.iptc.org/RightsML-Simple-Example-Channel
<o:Policy uid="http://example.com/RightsML/policy/idChan1"
 type="http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/Set"
 xmlns:o="http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/">
   <o:permission>
      <o:asset uid="urn:newsml:example.com:2013-GM1E5320IMH01"
       relation="http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/target"/>
      <o:action name="http://iptc.org/std/RightsML/2011-10-07/distribute"/>
      <o:constraint name="http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/purpose"
       operator="http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/eq"
       rightOperand="http://example.com/cv/audMedia/MOBILE"/>
      <o:party uid="http://example.com/cv/party/epa"
       function="http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/assigner"/>
      <o:party uid="http://example.com/cv/policy/group/epapartners"
       function="http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/assigner"/>
   </o:permission>
</o:Policy>


> This is difficult to assess as it's unclear where profiles are documented. The Common vocabulary https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/vocab/2.1/ says "see also Section 3 Profiles" but there's no such section anywhere. Which is rather surprising to find 
> *after* the closing of a call for comments by the way.

Yes, that does seem to be a bug in the Common Vocabulary spec!

Regards,

Stuart



-----Original Message-----
From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] 
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 10:24 AM
To: public-odrl@w3.org
Subject: Reaction and questions to new docs

Dear ODLR group,

First: congrats to this group for having made such progress!
I've followed the ODRL work from quite far away so far, but am always been interested, and the new documents are a great step forward.

Keeping it short: I am contacting you on behalf of this project: http://dp.la/info/about/projects/getting-it-right-on-rights/
We're trying to solve some modeling issues on rights statements, and ODRL is one of our relevant sources.

But it is really not easy for us understand how to use ODRL, even with the enhanced documentation.

One example is for representing human-readable labels and definitions for Policies.
https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/#section-21 says [Other attributes MAY be added to the Policy entity to support additional functions and requirements. Typically, these will be from different community vocabularies. For example, to indicate the issued date or valid dates of the Policy entity, use of the Dublin Core Metadata Terms would be recommended.
]
This sounds like this would suits the case of labels and documentations, but still it's surprising to find nothing in the current ODRL given that these use cases seem quite fundamental.

Another example is that we want to express right statements like "an organisation has been allowed to authorise educational uses"
but we have not much clue how to do it in ODRL really. Would "educational" be an ODRL Profile?
This is difficult to assess as it's unclear where profiles are documented. The Common vocabulary https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/vocab/2.1/ says "see also Section 3 Profiles" but there's no such section anywhere. Which is rather surprising to find *after* the closing of a call for comments by the way.

In general the documentation suffers from the fact that some features have no concrete examples. A lot has been done already, and it's really good that it's been done for the different serialization. But we still miss something that would show profiles, and maybe situations like the Core Model's example "Alice is forbidden to use abc.mp3 commercially".

If it is too late for you to answer such things now that you've closed the call for comments, we'd understand of course.
If you're happy with happy with this kind of conversation, we will probably come with more questions in the very near future.

Best regards,

Antoine

[1] http://dp.la/info/2014/03/18/getting-it-right-on-rights/



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

Received on Monday, 9 March 2015 20:57:27 UTC