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

Yes! In the MPEG-21 Media Contract Ontology (MCO) ([article]( we defined "contract" as an exchange of promises.

But if we are to represent contracts (parts thereof) with ODRL, I have a say. In MCO, the equivalent for "Rule" is "DeonticExpression", and we have Permission/Obligation/Prohibition as its subclasses --the logical operators to combine expressions, the vocabulary and the party/asset models are all very similar structures. Yet, if we had to model contracts with ODRL I would miss a couple of features from MCO: 

1. a few relations between policies, akin to policy conflict strategies but not the same (isAmmendmentOf/supersedes/cancels/prevails) 

2.  the ability to represent agreed facts. "Both Party A and Party B accept that as of today the Fact X holds".

3. the relation between a contract clause (or subclause) and a certain policy (or policy rule, or policy part). This one indeed can be expressed with the many metadata terms that can be considered, but I don't remember the ODRL IM recommending a specific one.

4. the ability to represent contract templates. I much defended this when we discussed the Use Cases, but in the end I see no explicit trace in the spec. I would have loved having the "template" as one of the policy types.

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

Received on Sunday, 13 August 2017 14:39:13 UTC