[Odrl-version2] resumption of containers & model update

[Susanne Guth]

Hi everybody,

as you can see from my various emails this was an ODRL weekend for me :)

>From reading through the discussions I found the following:

1.) we need containers
2.) we need prohibitions
3.) we need contractual details and negotition elements
4.) the model has simplification potential

I worked a little bit on the model that you can see attached. This is - of
course - only a draft and no new v2 model.

1.) Containers

I added a container element which is not properly related to the other
elements. Container have the attributes 

BIND containing e.g. OR, AND
TYPE containing e.g. "Container of Constraints"
RELATEDTO containing the element that includes the container.

I think that we would have to carefully describe in our semantics what each
container type means, so that we provide a chance to implement the language.

Container Example
<o-ex20:constraint id="c01">  
       <o-ex20:count>
           <o-ex20:max>20</o-ex20:max>
       </o-ex20:count>
  </o-ex20:constraint>

         <o-ex20:constraint id="c02">  
          <o-ex20:datetime>
           <o-ex20:notLaterThan>31-12-2004</o-ex20:notLaterThan>
          </o-ex20:datetime>
         </o-ex20:constraint>

<o-ex20:container id="cont01" bind="or" type"constraint container">
     <o-ex20:includes constraint="c02"/>
     <o-ex20:includes constraint="c01"/>
</o-ex20:container>


2.)

I kept prohibitions as they were. However, this issue need further
discussion. The important question is if we can formalise the model with
prohibitions in it... vicky I count on you here :)

3.)

I added the negotiation and communication elements. Details (attributes must
be discussed.

4.) 

What do you guys think of removing the rights-expression-type level and
instead using an attribute "TYPE" in rights to specify the semantics of the
actual rights expression?

I have a problem with different hierarchies of RE elements, like in alapans
approach - simply for negotiation. If somebody wants to use ODRL without the
negotiation part, then the hierarchies do not make sense at all. An aim
should really be to keep the negotiation part independent of the remaining
model. 

If a RE grants next rights, for example, then these nextrights have to be
defined in a new rights expressed. RE ids would have to link the various
rights expressions. This would have the advantage that a "nextRight" could
more easily become part of a new agreement (I think).

Comments?

-- 
Susanne Guth
susanne at odrl.net
ODRL Initiative
http://odrl.net/

DSL-Aktion wegen großer Nachfrage bis 28.2.2006 verlängert:
GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos* http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ODRLv2DataModel0106.jpg
Type: image/pjpeg
Size: 64117 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.odrl.net/pipermail/odrl-version2/attachments/20060130/9026c0f1/ODRLv2DataModel0106.bin