Re: [poe] Reviews of ODRL IM - Editor's Draft 3 August 2017

Re 2.7 Policy Rule Composition
* Now 1: A Policy MAY also be related to Assets, Parties, and Actions at the Policy level, and these relationships apply to all of the enclosing Rules in the Policy.
Semantic issue 1a: the first part of the sentence sounds like the policy-level properties used for the Compact Policy - but then comes "enclosing Rules": what Rules are meant by that? E.g. all the related Rules of a Policy? This wording needs clarification.
Semantic issue 1b: if "A Policy MAY also be related to Assets, Parties, and Actions at the Policy level, " covers the Compact Policy case this is a contradiction to 2.7.1 as it states "... These shared properties MUST NOT be interpreted as Policy-level properties ...". If the text states that a Policy **relates** to an Asset at the policy-level this establishes a relationship between the Policy and the Asset and makes the Asset a property of the Policy.
This needs to be fixed.
* Now 2: In order to create the atomic Rules in a Policy, the processing model for policies with multiple Assets, Parties, and Actions includes:
Semantic issue 2: this sounds like Assets, Parties and Actions at the policy-level are meant - but as the examples and the processing model shows multiple Assets, Parties and Actions inside a Rule are meant.
* Now 3: the processing model wording using " ... then create new Rules ..."
Should be 3: "... then **replace the existing Rule by newly created** Rules ..."
(Comment: currently the existing Rule would stay.)

Re 2.7.1 Compact Policy
* Now 1: processing model, item 2: Remove the shared properties declared at the Policy-level
Issue 1: why is this action required? 2.7.1 has already defined that any policy-level property should not be interpreted as policy property. And how to _remove_ such properties ...
Could be 1: **2. Ignore the shared properties declared at the Policy-level for any further policy processing.**
* Now 2: It is RECOMMENDED that compact ODRL Policies be expanded to atomic Policies when being processed for conformance or _exchanged_ for interoperability, to reflect the normative ODRL Information Model.
Issue 2a: does that mean a Compact Policy SHOULD only be used inside the company/system of the publisher of the Policy? (... else it is an _exchanged_ policy ...)
Issue 2b: does that mean a Compact Policy does not reflect the normative ODRL IM?
This needs clarification.

GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 7 August 2017 16:37:40 UTC