Re: odrl:LeftOperand and odrl:Action affinity to odrl:Rule classes

Maybe this is where SHACL comes in?

We did discuss this (briefly) many years ago, but decided to let the community define this level of additional rules.

For example, you could conceive a Duty where I had to play a video of a Gambling Warning video each time I showed a Gambling advert (as we do here in Australia!)

Cheers - R 

> On 3 Jul 2024, at 20:52, Joshua Cornejo <josh@marketdata.md> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  
> Has anyone considered the need for explicit affinity from left operands and actions to Rule classes?
>  
> Operands:
> Example:  odrl:payAmount should only be used in odrl:Duty
>  
> Or are there use cases where implicit duties are applicable:
>  
> ex:PaymentRefinement            a odrl:Constraint; 
>                  odrl:leftOperand odrl:payAmount;     # <-- this refinement now looks like a Duty within a Permission
>                     odrl:operator odrl:eq;
>                 odrl:rightOperand "25"^^xsd:decimal.
> 
> ex:ActionURI                    a odrl:Action;
>                       odrl:action odrl:play;
>                         odrl:unit iso4217:EUR;
>                   odrl:refinement ex:PaymentRefinement.
> 
> ex:Permission                   a odrl:Permission;
>                     terms:created "2024-067-03T09:33:36.9180000Z"^^xsd:dateTime;
>                       odrl:target ex:AssetURI;
>                ex:actionReference ex:ActionURI.
>  
> Actions:
> Likewise, certain actions shouldn’t have an affinity with rule classes.
>  
> An example that comes to mind would be odrl:play shouldn’t be used within an odrl:Duty.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> ___________________________________
> Joshua Cornejo
> marketdata <https://www.marketdata.md/>
> embed open standards 
> across your supply chain