- From: Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:39:13 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
Yes! In the MPEG-21 Media Contract Ontology (MCO) ([article](http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/overview-mpeg-21-media-contract-ontology-1)) 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 https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/215#issuecomment-322046032 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 13 August 2017 14:39:13 UTC