[Odrl-version2] Parties...

[Guth, Susanne, VF-Group]

Hi Renato,

Yes, I like that. Does that mean that we can remove 'Assignees' from our
model?
Kind regards
Susanne

-----Original Message-----
From: odrl-version2-bounces at odrl.net
[mailto:odrl-version2-bounces at odrl.net] On Behalf Of ri at odrl.net
Sent: Freitag, 23. Juli 2010 04:51
To: ODRL-Version2
Subject: [Odrl-version2] Parties...


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



_______________________________________________
Odrl-version2 mailing list
Odrl-version2 at odrl.net
http://odrl.net/mailman/listinfo/odrl-version2_odrl.net