[Odrl-version2] Model change?

[Francis Cave]

No, both are permissions. The first says any assignee is permitted to
distribute the asset. The second says that Party A is permitted to
distribute the asset, but with the constraint that Party A may not
distribute the asset online. Can you suggest a better way of expressing
this?

 

Francis

 

 

 

 

From: odrl-version2-bounces at odrl.net [mailto:odrl-version2-bounces at odrl.net]
On Behalf Of ri at odrl.net
Sent: 19 November 2010 06:04
To: ODRL-Version2
Subject: Re: [Odrl-version2] Model change?

 

On 19 Nov 2010, at 01:28, Francis Cave wrote:





<o:policy

  xmlns:o="http://odrl.net/2.0"

  xmlns:a="http://assigner.com/identifiers"

  type="o:set"

  inheritAllowed="true"

  conflict="prohibit">

    <o:permission>

        <o:asset uid="myAssetURI"/>

        <o:role uid="a:anyParty" function="o:assignee"/>

        <o:action name="o:distribute"/>

    </o:permission>

    <o:permission>

        <o:asset uid="myAssetURI"/>

        <o:role uid="a:party_A" function="o:assignee"/>

        <o:action name="o:distribute"/>

        <o:constraint

          name="o:media"

          operator="o:neq"

          rightOperand="a:online"/>

    </o:permission>

</o:policy>

 

Francis - I assume the second Permission should be a Prohibition?

 





 I also wonder whether the <o:role> element in the first permission is
needed. In the Core Model a Permission must have at least one Party, but in
the XML schema <o:role> is non-mandatory.

 

That is due to the current issue of Ticket/Set not having Parties....for
resolution next week!

 

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/20101119/6f6ac7d7/attachment.html>