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

[Francis Cave]

Hi Susanne

Yes, let's discuss on the Skype call - I think I'll be on it. I think I 
agree with you. A permission is meaningless unless one understands there 
to be an (eventual) assignee, even if the party is defined to be an 
unknown member of a class (e.g. "the holder of this ticket" - there can 
only be one member in this class, of course). I think the solution is 
likely to be to find some way of including party/ies in the Ticket 
scenario. But let's discuss this on the call.

Regards,

Francis




Guth, Susanne, VF-Group wrote:

> 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
>
>