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

[David Martin]

Renato,

Thanks for taking so much trouble on this - but I have to say that it 
strikes me as a very complex solution compared with the very simple one 
of allowing the output resource from an Action to be declared with a 
uid, and then using that uid as the Asset referenced in separate 
Permissions and Prohibitions.  And it doesn't differentiate between the 
original Asset and its downstream derivatives.

In this particular use case it might reasonably work for the access and 
data mining steps, but it would surely break down at the next stage if 
we needed to express Permissions or Prohibitions relating to whatever 
was extracted by data mining, which is clearly an entity distinct from, 
although derived from, the original Asset.

I haven't discussed it with Francis, but from my standpoint the ability 
to specify multiple Assets and Roles in the same way as you have now 
proposed for Parties must remain on our wish list.  We have, 
incidentally, nearly finished working through a more detailed comparison 
of the functionality in ONIX and ODRL, and I expect we'll be letting you 
know the outcome next week.  Not many issues, I think, but this is 
definitely one of them.

Best wishes,

David

In message <A4DEBCE2-2B18-42ED-8739-B6C200F1E374 at odrl.net>, 
"ri at odrl.net" <ri at odrl.net> writes
>
>On 12 Nov 2010, at 00:57, David Martin wrote:
>
>> The second is more difficult.  As an example of a use case, we 
>>currently deal with the way some publishers express a data mining 
>>permission by specifying "access by crawler" to a "licensed content" 
>>Asset (eg a database of subscribed online journals) creating a new 
>>resource "downloaded licensed content".  We then have a second 
>>permission allowing the use of the "downloaded licensed content" (the 
>>Asset in this second permission) for data mining, usually with some 
>>constraints on retention of the downloaded data, and possibly some 
>>further permissions and/or prohibitions on the use of the output of 
>>the data mining process. So at each stage we need to identify the 
>>output of one Action so that it can be used as the Asset in the next 
>>Action.  That doesn't sound like a Constraint.
>>
>> How would ODRL handle a requirement to identify a new resource that 
>>is created by an Action, so that it can be referred to in subsequent 
>>Actions?
>
>Hmmm....good question.....
>
>What comes to mind is the NextPolicy (duty) action.
>
>That is - we can specify/control the downstream use of the asset.
>
>I tried to represent your use case (above) in the attached diagram.
>
>Does that make sense?
>
>Cheers
>
>Renato Iannella
>ODRL Initiative
>http://odrl.net
>
>
>[ A MIME image / jpg part was included here. ]
>[ saved as "C:\Users\David\Documents\ODRL\101112 Example-ONIX-1.jpg" ]
>
>_______________________________________________
>Odrl-version2 mailing list
>Odrl-version2 at odrl.net
>http://odrl.net/mailman/listinfo/odrl-version2_odrl.net
>
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3251 - Release Date: 11/11/10

-- 
David Martin
david at polecat.dircon.co.uk

Address in UK
117 Percy Road, HAMPTON TW12 2JS, UK
Telephone +44 (0)20 8286 8983 (or 8979 2516, if no reply)

In Tenerife
Rambla de Santa Cruz 153, Sexto, Puerta 21, 38001 Santa Cruz de Tenerife, SPAIN
Telephone +34 922 27 23 92
Mobile (in Spain only) +34 639 742 634