[Odrl-version2] Followup on Legal stuff about contracts
Susanne Guth
Susanne.Guth at gmx.net
Sat Mar 11 11:41:43 EST 2006
Hi Renato,
thanks for the review. Please read my comments in line. New draft is
available @
http://odrl.net/2.0/WD-ODRL-Model-20060310.html
>
>
> Susanne - thanks for the update - great work.
> I have some minor editing but will leave that to the end.
>
> Here are some more substantive questions:
>
> 1 - Should we have a "Change History" as the table of contents says?
> (or too many changes!)
Is absolutely required and has been added to the draft.
> 2 - On the Model, Permission, Prohibition, and Duty all have a
> "tradeable" attribute. What is this for?
>
Has to do with the negotiation and was discussed with Alapan in several
emails. It indicates if this entity is subject to negotiation or not. Draft
has been updated.
> 3 - On the Model, the "inherit" association on the Asset entity
> probably is best as an attribute now.
I don't understand this comment please clarify.
> 4 - In the Rights Class Model, where we say "the Request/Ticket (etc)
> must contain an Asset" should we say "...must contain at least one
> Asset" ?
Agreed. Done.
>
> 5 - In the Permission Model, we should say that since the Permission
> must contain ONE Action, that multiple Permissions are also allowed.
> Also, we say that the Permission must also contain ONE Asset - can it
> be multiple??
No, there must not be multiple assets in one permission unless you can
identify several assets with one ID. Also there must not be multiple Actions
in one permission. That's a little bit of a draw back of the presentation
because it may make larger expressions very long. However, there is no
ambiguouty possible what a Permission refers to anymore.
> 6 - The Duty Model scenario examples have Action/Measure/Value shown,
> but we only talk about Action and "Object" in the normative text?
Oh, thanks. That a mistake of course. I changed the duty elements, so now
they contain actions and objects. Have a look!
> 7 - Legal model - Alapan, need some text definitions here (thanks!)
>
> 8 - I think we need to add wording to clarify the situation when
> there are both Permissions and Prohibitions in the expression (and
> where there is a direct conflict). I can work on that...
That would be great. Thanks.
> 9 - The Ticket Scenario - need to remove the Assignee party as this
> is not part of a ticket
I changed the describtion here. I think it should be possible to identifier
an assignee. For example, if the ticket can only be executed by a specific
person.
> 10 - We need to add an Acknowledgments section at the end and list
> all people (including from
> this WG) how have contributed to the document.
Done! I quickly did put the containers in. They need more semantic thought.
Any comments for containers?
So long
Susanne
--
Susanne Guth
susanne at odrl.net
ODRL Initiative
http://odrl.net/
"Feel free" mit GMX FreeMail!
Monat für Monat 10 FreeSMS inklusive! http://www.gmx.net
More information about the Odrl-version2
mailing list