Re: non-exclusive grant

I might suggest also that for the case of non-exclusive, you might want to
think about sub-categorizing that into an "unlimited" arrangement or a
"limited edition" arrangement--where there can only exist specific numbered
editions.

- Hassan

On Sunday, November 29, 2015, Renato Iannella <renato@knowledgeflux.com>
wrote:

>
> On 27 Nov 2015, at 4:25 AM, Enrico.Daga <Enrico.Daga@open.ac.uk
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Enrico.Daga@open.ac.uk');>> wrote:
> I am attempting to model an agreement in ODRL and I need to formally
> describe that the assigner grants a non-exclusive set of permissions to the
> assignee.
>
> I noticed the “ensureExclusivity” action in the specification, and the
> possibility to use constraints. However I could not come to a good solution
> so far.
>
>
>
> Hi Enrico…welcome…
>
> The model assumes (ie is silent) that granting of permissions is
> non-exclusive, unless otherwise specified with the “ensureExclusivity”
> duty. That is, if you are assigned the “distribute” permission, you can
> assume others may have the same unless you have the “ensureExclusivity”
> duty as well.
>
> Since ODRL does not have a concept for non-exclusive (only the opposite),
> then the easiest option is to define your own:
>
>  <o:permission>
>         <o:asset uid="http://ex.com/music:45" relation="o:target"/>
>         <o:action name="o:distribute"/>
>         <o:party uid="http://ex.com/sony" function="o:assigner"/>
>         <o:party uid="http://ex.com/billie" function="o:assignee"/>
>         <o:duty>
>             <o:party uid="http://ex.com/sony" function="o:assignee"/>
>             <o:action name="yourNamespace:nonExclusive"/>
>         </o:duty>
> </o:permission>
>
> Our constraint mechanism does not support a “negate” feature (ie to turn
> ensureExclusivity into doNotEnsureExclusivity).
>
>
> *Renato*
>