[Odrl-version2] New ODRL v2.0 Model

Wed Feb 1 20:50:11 EST 2006

Hi Susanne,
Thanks a lot for your comments - they are very much appreciated.
> 1.)
> How do you like a different title that expresses what you actually want to
> address - negotiation! Something like:
> 
> "Enabling ODRL for Negotiation" or something similar. I think the overall
> approach should be, that negotiation in ODRL can be used as a plug-in. Maybe
> as a subschema? What do you think about that?
> 
While I agree that much of the paper was about negotiation, there were
significant parts also to do with other aspects of ODRL - aspects that
we have now discussed in detail in the past few weeks. 

As for negotiation - ODRL does not have to specifically cater for it. In
my opinion, no language can have all the vocabulary needed to express
ideas that have yet to be formed. Expressing negotiations is a matter of
vocabulary. What I am interested in is more in the structure of the
language, the grammar - so that, if new vocabulary is introduced, it
does not require a radical overhaul of the language.

In this sense, I would like ODRL to cater structurally for negotiations.
Thus, negotiations will in effect be still a plug-in as much of the
necessary vocabulary need not be in the main data dictionary - but I
think there is a need to stop developing a new REL in order to express
negotiations.

On this point, I think your proposed model (my comments on that are on a
separate email) does fulfil the requirements.
> 2.)
> On page 2 you write "there is some mandatory information". Can you be more
> concrete on this. What exactly is really mandatory? Do we have a contract
> expert among us? I know that in Germany, for example, contracts are
> formless. What is your source for the information 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc. can
> you refer to some business standards document?
> 
As I wrote in a footnote earlier, the basis for my discussion in on
South African law, which in turn is based on common law and Roman-Dutch
law. I did rely on a law text book (ref 11) which is used to teach first
year contract law for the basics, but I do intend going over section 2
with a law professor from my university once I get back next week. 

>From what I understood from the text book, there is some information
that is required to be present in a contract to be valid which include
things like the date when the contract is being entered into (or comes
into effect) etc. but I do plan on getting the information correctly
verified etc. soon. 
> 3.)
> In Section 3 you define 3.Bargaining, in Section 3.3 you describe
> "Bartering". Which one is the right term?
> 
My mistake - I should stick to one term - and I prefer bartering. 
> 4.)
> You refer to Su et al and name the 4 components for electronic negotiations.
> 
> I guess for the entire ODRL community it would be important to define where
> the "language to define rules" ends and where "the language to express
> negotiation proposals" --> ODRL starts. I there a concrete example in your
> references that show the difference between the two languages?
> 
Unfortunately not. But personally I like to think of it in the following
way:
The language to express negotiation protocols is the language used
between two or more parties to express their needs and offers. Thus in a
bazaar for example it could take the form of:
Cust: "How much is this?"
Sell: "I will give it you for 50"
Cust: "That's too much, I can only offer 20"
Sell: "At that price, my kids will go hungry to bed. The best I can do
is 40"
Cust: "I can offer 30 and not more"
Sell: "35"
Cust: "Ok, but with delivery to my hotel"
Sell: "Done"

In my mind, that is what ODRL needs to do - express the negotiations and
get the final set of terms and conditions.

The "language to define rules" refers to how the seller and the customer
make up their mind on the value propositions. This could take a lot of
different factors into account - for example, previous transaction
history, the method of payment, the trustworthiness of the relevant
parties. Thus, in the above example, the seller could be calculating 
his offers based on the cost price and thus maximising his profit,
while the buyer is calculating his offers based on how much money
he has in his pocket. In my opinion, standard ODRL should not be 
involved in this - as there are too many permutations involved.
> 5.)
> What language would be suitable as "language to define rules"? RuleML?
> 
Not sure - I do plan to tackle this issue sometime this year though ;)
It could be based on ODRL - but since this has to do with specific
installations and AI agents, I don't see a need to cater for it in ODRL
specifically.

> That's it. If time allows I will respond to the other already ongoing
> discussions. We have really important issues here...

> So long and thanks for your effort.
> :))
> 
Thanks a lot for your efforts too!

Regards
Alapan

> Susanne
> 
> "The customer is always right"
> 
> 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > New year's greetings to everyone. 
> > 
> > As discussed with Renato and Susanne last month, I have been working on
> > a few new ideas on the ODRL v2.0 model, which I have just completed. In
> > the attached PDF, you will find a paper detailing the new model, and the
> > motivations for the changes (most of which are based on negotiations
> > support). The paper also contains 7 examples (in XML), the full schema
> > (XSD) and a sample data dictionary. 
> > 
> > I can forward the original source documents for the model, xml examples
> > and schema file.
> > 
> > I would like your comments and feedback esp. with regards to the duty
> > and action elements (see sections 4.5.4 and 4.5.5).
> > 
> > Regards
> > Alapan Arnab
> > -- 
> > Alapan Arnab
> > Data Networks Architecture (DNA) Laboratory
> > Department of Computer Science
> > University of Cape Town
> > Rondebosch, 7700
> > South Africa
> > 
> > Tel: +27 21 650 3127
> > Web: http://people.cs.uct.ac.za/~aarnab/
> > Blog: http://idiots-mind.blogspot.com
> > ----------
> > "You must always believe that you can be the best, but you must never
> > believe you have achieved it".
> > Juan Manuel Fangio
> > 
> 
-- 
Alapan Arnab
Data Networks Architecture (DNA) Laboratory
Department of Computer Science
University of Cape Town
Rondebosch, 7700
South Africa

Tel: +27 21 650 3127
Web: http://people.cs.uct.ac.za/~aarnab/
Blog: http://idiots-mind.blogspot.com
----------
"You must always believe that you can be the best, but you must never
believe you have achieved it".
Juan Manuel Fangio