[Odrl-version2] Updated Vocab

[Steven Rowat]

ri at odrl.net wrote: > New release of updated Vocab working draft: > > 
http://odrl.net/2.0/WD-ODRL-Vocab-20100527.html

I have had little ODRL v.2 involvement for over a year, for a variety 
of reasons. This has allowed me to approach this document, to some 
degree, as if I'm a new user reading it for the first time. For this 
reason I'm noting all my problems with it, no matter how seemingly 
trivial.

And the fact that I'm resorting to the seemingly trivial is also an 
indication of how fundamentally complete the document is; nonetheless 
I think it has reached the point where even these need to be 
addressed, because new readers, more than re-drafters, require that 
such attention-distractors not get in the way of understanding what 
the document is really about.

General Problem:

Use of the [RFC-2119] modifiers "MUST" "SHOULD" etc. is not clear to 
me in two ways:

a): Is capitalization required or not? (Note that "MAY" is capitalized 
once, "MUST" twice; the rest not). I believe this needs to be spelled 
out in the document, because the [RFC-2119] itself is not clear on 
whether capitalization is required; it only says: "...These words are 
often capitalized."

b): is the word "can" used throughout synonymous with "MAY" of the 
[RFC-2119]? If so, I believe the document should note this, or should 
use "MAY" instead of 'can' in all cases.

Suggestion for [RFC-2119] modifiers: What I think would read best and 
be the most easily understandable would be to have the capitalization 
declared as not necessary for this document, and simply don't use it 
at all. However, if this is done, then all other 'must' and 'may' uses 
have to be checked carefully because they will be [RFC-2119] uses by 
default.

2.0 ODRL Common Vocabulary

Singular and plural do not seem to match in this sentence:

"The table[s] below outline[s] the comprehensive version 2.0 ODRL 
Common Vocabulary."

Suggestion: Possibly this sentence can be read (using some mental 
gymnastics) as technically correct, but really I think the meaning 
would be clearer using: "The table[s] below outline[] the 
comprehensive…etc."

2.1: Rights Types

Table:

The Semantics and Comments fields are inconsistent in whether they are 
punctuated with a final period. In two cases they are (Set and Ticket 
Comment), in the rest they are not. I suggest that, in this table at 
least, since some of the texts have multiple sentences and the first 
sentences are using full punctuation (see the Offer and Request 
Comments, and others), then it is odd to leave off the final period on 
the next sentence. So I feel it would be best to use a final period in 
all the Semantics and Comment sentences.

2.2.1 Permissions and Prohibitions

In the Table:

a) As in previous table, the final period is inconsistent in Semantics 
and Comments. I suggest again adding it in all cases. Or at very 
least, since many fields are very short, adding it in cases where 
there are multiple sentences.

b) Annotate, Comment: Now reads: "A new asset is created". This 
sentence confused me here the first time I encountered it (though 
later when I saw it several times in other places, I understood). My 
initial thought was: Does it mean that the annotation itself is the 
new asset? If so I think it could be stated more clearly, for 
instance: "A new asset is created (which is the annotation)".

c) Distribute, Semantics: Now reads: "The act of distributing, display 
publicly, and publicly perform the asset"

  i) The verb forms are not the same, which causes difficulties in 
understanding the sentence. I believe it would read better as: "The 
act of distributing, display[ing] publicly, and publicly perform[ing] 
the asset."

  ii) Perhaps the 'and' in that sentence means 'or' ? In other words, 
I'm unclear about whether the Permission to Distribute allows all 
three of these together and individually? It appears so. If so, 
wouldn't the correct word for just 'displaying publicly' be 'or', 
rather than 'and'? (So the best to cover all cases would be 'and/or')?

d) Give - Comment - 'MUST' : Capitalization means...? See my comment 
on general problems at start.

2.2.2 Duties

a) reviewTerms - Comment: Now reads: "[Maybe] used when human 
intervention is required to review the rights expression" "Maybe" is 
not correct here, I believe; I believe the Comment would read better 
and consistent with other usage in the document as: "[This action can 
be] used when human intervention is required to review the rights 
expression."

2.3 Constraints

a) The first sentence is not comprehensible to me. I believe there has 
been at least one major punctuation error (comma that should be a 
period), one minor punctuation error (semi-colon that should be a 
colon), and one typo error changing a word ('as' that should be 'has').

I think in fact that it should be two sentences; which would read as 
follows (changes in square brackets):

"The Constraint entity [h]as three attributes[:] name, operator and 
rightOperand[.] For example, to express that…" etc.

b) Sentence directly above the Table, and Table itself: See my 
comments about use of periods at sentence endings, for section 2.1. I 
believe all sentences should end with a period.

c) Format - Comment: Now reads: "…For example, JPEG image can only be 
distributed."

The 'only' incorrectly modifies 'distributed', when what is meant is 
for it to modify 'JPEG'. A better wording would be: "…For example, 
only JPEG image can be distributed."

2.4 Object

Sentence directly above the Table, and Table itself: See my comments 
about use of periods at sentence endings, for section 2.1.

2.6 Asset, and 3 Profiles:

Inconsistent use of periods at sentence endings.

Best regards,

Steven Rowat