[Odrl-version2] Core Model: Roles, Parties and Assets

[Guth, Susanne, VF-Group]

Hi Francis, Renato,
 
having a permission always associated to a party is one of our basic
model priciples - allowing to interpret the language easily.
I don't agree to change the cardinalities to 0. Can we find a different
way to solve the ticket idea?
Even a ticket always has a party associated. e.g. the person that holds
the ticket in its hand.
 
Can we discuss this issue on our next ODRL Skype call?
Best
Susanne

________________________________

From: odrl-version2-bounces at odrl.net
[mailto:odrl-version2-bounces at odrl.net] On Behalf Of ri at odrl.net
Sent: Montag, 8. November 2010 05:53
To: francis at franciscave.com; ODRL-Version2
Subject: Re: [Odrl-version2] Core Model: Roles, Parties and Assets



On 6 Nov 2010, at 02:54, Francis Cave wrote:


	
	2. If it is mandatory for a Permission / Prohibition to have at
least one associated Party, does this contradict Figure 3.1 (Set), in
which apparently a Policy does not have a Party? The model for a Ticket
also seem to contradict 2.1.


That is true. I think we were "thinking" of Agreements/Offers when we
made that change (in Nancy).

I will change the cardinalities on the Model for Party to "0..*" and let
the TYPE definitions mandate the cardinalities.

Cheers

Renato Iannella
ODRL Initiative
http://odrl.net


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://odrl.net/pipermail/odrl-version2_odrl.net/attachments/20101109/d65e98c0/attachment.html>