[Odrl-version2] RE: ODRL-Version2 Digest, Vol 13, Issue 5
Vicky Weissman
vickyw at cs.cornell.edu
Wed Feb 8 12:56:02 EST 2006
On 7 Feb 2006, at 02:03, Vicky Weissman wrote:
>> <duty id="1" relaxed="true">
>> <payment>
>> <amount currency="EUR">1</amount>
>> </payment>
>> </duty>
>>
>> <permission>
>> <payment>
>> <amount currency="EUR">1</amount>
>> </payment>
>> </duty>
>
> Is it really true that it would *never* make sense to have the second
> statement?
On 7 Feb 2006, Renato Iannella replied:
>If we looked at a use case that involves assigning rights to digital content
;-), then it does not make sense.
>
>Especially given the definition of Permissions:
>"The Permission entity indicates the actions that the Assignee/s is
permitted to perform on the Target asset"
I'm tempted to talk about targets that are online bank accounts (paying 1 EUR
= depositing 1 EUR) or online customer accounts (paying = paying off debt).
Actually, I'm more tempted to talk about targets that are avatars in
massively multiplayer games. But, as long as we agree that splitting actions
into 2 categories is probably not the way to go, then I guess I should rein
in the creativity :-)
On 7 Feb 2006, Renato Iannella Said:
> I would have thought that by allowing more constraint use, then the
semantics would be clearer ??
I don't understand this statement. Could you clarify?
Thanks,
Vicky
More information about the Odrl-version2
mailing list