[Odrl-version2] ODRL meets Social Networks

[Helge Hundacker]

Hello Renato, 
That is a really good idea. Especially for URM we can use them as party types. We thought about to indroduce "everyone" (in fact we thought about the term "all", but these expressions are better). Also the "all friends" can be usefull for our idea of realising a policy-aware P2P client, where you can decide which persons should be enabled to receive a "private copy" of a CD for example. Since in URM the user selfs decides how risky he wants to be, he could also give private copys  to friends of friends (What will not be a good idea, bus the user decides).

One question is, if these expressions are from a known namespace (e.g. like dublincore). Are there namespaces like that? I'm not an expert in these field. Perhaps we can find something at http://www.opensocial.org/.

Greets from Koblenz,
Helge Hundacker

--------------------------
Dipl.-Ing. Helge Hundacker

IT Risk Management
University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany
Phone  +49 261 287-2867
http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~hundacker 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: odrl-version2-bounces at odrl.net 
> [mailto:odrl-version2-bounces at odrl.net] Im Auftrag von ri at odrl.net
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. März 2010 07:41
> An: ODRL-Version2
> Betreff: [Odrl-version2] ODRL meets Social Networks
> 
> 
> Dear all - after some research/analysis of the typical 
> "Permissions" expressed used by Social Networks [1] [2], I 
> have been thinking of the support needed in the ODRL Common 
> Vocabulary.
> 
> Typically, most of the expressions are constraining access to 
> people (and groups of people)
> 
> That is:
>  - Only You
>  - Everyone
>  - Individual Friends (and NOT individual friends)
>  - All Friends (1st level connections)
>  - All Friends of Friends (2nd level connections)
>  - All Groups
>  - Some Groups (and NOT some groups)
> 
> The big question is if there are *new* semantics we need to 
> add, or can we support this now (in V2.0)
> 
> If the former, are we looking at new Constraints, or should 
> we review how we deal with Parties and extend them to deal 
> with these new concepts?
> 
> Looking forward to all your views....
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Renato Iannella
> ODRL Initiative
> http://odrl.net
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/PolicyCommons
> [2] 
> http://www.nicta.com.au/research/research_publications/show?id=1855
> _______________________________________________
> Odrl-version2 mailing list
> Odrl-version2 at odrl.net
> http://odrl.net/mailman/listinfo/odrl-version2_odrl.net
>