Scope in the ODRL Model

> On 17 Oct. 2016, at 23:26, Myles, Stuart <SMyles@ap.org> wrote:
> 
>  But that we open a new topic of “should we remove scope from the ODRL model?”

First, some history. The original requirement is #1.13 documented here [1] and the related issue [2].

[1] https://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/2.0/v2req.html <https://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/2.0/v2req.html>
[2] https://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/2.0/issues/issueslist-1_13.html <https://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/2.0/issues/issueslist-1_13.html>

> Does the inclusion of a “scope=group” help with that evaluation? In my view, no. I can’t see how in practical terms the set of rules to be evaluated would be influenced by the presence of absence of the scope property.

The original motivation was to be clear that the assignment of rights (for example) was going to a group of people (assignees) and not an individual (which you could not tell from the URI).


> I think that Patrick expresses this more elegantly than I do when he says “your JSON is already half trying to incorporate semantic content” – really the “semantic content” of properties like “scope” do not belong in the ODRL model or the serialization of it.

I think this is because of the way the ODRL Information Model was mapped into the ODRL Ontology.
That is, the Party structural attribute scope was turned into a Class/Type instead.
And using JSON-LD now makes it more clearer how to do this with the @type.
We could have also done this in XML Schema - created “Group” as an extension of the Party complexType and allowed substitution groups for the element “party”.


Renato Iannella, Monegraph
Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working Group