[Odrl-version2] Parties...

[ri at odrl.net]

I've been thinking more about the Assigner/Assignee representation. Does the following make sense:

The ODRL Model deals with Parties in two ways. First, Parties can be the Assigner of a Policy, and second, they can be the Assignee of Policy. As an Assigner, all that is required is the unique identifier of the Party. For an Assigner, we require the unique identifier of the Party as well as a Scope identifier that provides additional context for the transaction. Typically, the Scope will identify the Assigner as an individual Party (the default), or a Group of Parties. The latter case indicating that the policy is being Assigned to all the group members. The Scope may play other roles, such as indicating that all "friends" of the Party are being assigned the Policy.

So we can do a simple expression like:

  <assigner uid="urn:sonny.com">
  <assignee uid="urn:billie">

Or, if the assignee is a group:

  <assignee uid="urn:billieUniversity" scope="http://odrl.net/role/group">

If we wanted the assignee to be all of Billie's friends:

  <assignee uid="urn:socialnetwork:user:billie" scope="http://odrl.net/role/allConnections">

Comments and feedback welcome!


Cheers

Renato Iannella
ODRL Initiative
http://odrl.net