[Odrl-version2] RE: ODRL-Version2 Digest, Vol 9, Issue 9

[Renato Iannella]

On 6 Sep 2005, at 06:04, Vicky Weissman wrote:

> The bottom line is that I don't understand the intuitive meaning
> behind the <or> container, at least with respect to permissions.

Vicky - you are correct. <or> does not make too much difference for  
permissions
but does for constraints.

> The alternatives (1) and (2) that Renato gives in his email suggest  
> that the
> intended meaning of permission X <xor> permission Y is that the  
> *user* can
> choose whether to exercise X or Y.

If you have an Agreement with an <xor> in it, then we have assumed  
that the
end user party will make the decision.
For example, Vicky assigns the following to me:
  <xor>
    <print>
    <display>
  </xor>

I then choose to <print>, then I cannot <display>.

> In summary, I'd keep the <and> container and see no reason why it  
> shouldn't
> be the default.

Yes, and it is the default.

>   I'd remove the <or> container, because I don't understand it
> (lets not think about what that says about me :).  And, for maximum
> flexibility, I'd replace the <xor> container by 3 flavors of <xor>,  
> which
> amounts to allowing an offer to be an <xor> of offers, a permission  
> to be an
> <xor> of permissions or an <xor-owner's choice> of permissions.   
> Note that
> I'm assuming the <xor> is the user's choice unless otherwise  
> specified.

Interesting. We will need to see how to model this (in UML) and if  
this is giving too many
options (= harder to implement!)

Cheers

Renato Iannella
ODRL Initiative
http://odrl.net