Re: Guidance on using ORDL for Archival Records

Thanks for your reply Ben, I have some further comments/questions
inline below...

> If I'm reading your description correctly you have three "states" to cover:
>
> 1) Records in which both the description and the content can be read
> 2) Records in which the description can be read but not the content
> 3) Records in which neither the description nor the contents can be read
>
> Also, records can change state, either through the passage of time, or through a review.

Yes that's about right. We actually model records as immutable, so we
have versions of records, when the state changes we generate a new
version of the record which describes the new state.


> I like to keep things really simple if I can. So I'm going to try and satisfy these requirements without recourse to inheritance, conflict resolution, or prohibitions. I don't think we need them. ODRL is a closed world - if a permission to do something doesn't exist, you can't do it.

Simple is good! I am wondering why ODRL would need Prohibitions at all
if it is a closed world? Are they needed to refine the granularity of
Permissions?


> Instead, I'd split the asset - the record - so we have two assets: the description and the whole record.

I need to give this some thought. I am not sure it is easy for us to
split the asset.

At the moment the asset has two things, aspects: 1. abstract concept
(the enduring form of the record), this has no description, and 2) one
or more descriptions of the record (Where each one is a revision of a
past one). The issue is that "the physical record" i.e. "the document"
is modelled by a manifestation, as we may have one or more
manifestations of a record through time also.

Perhaps some of our ODRL policies should refer to a description of the
record, whilst some should refer to a manifestation of a record.

Your approach is certainly appealing though...


-- 
Adam Retter
Director @ Evolved Binary

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2020 13:30:05 UTC