[Odrl-version2] ONIX Licensing Terms and ODRL

[ri at odrl.net]

Hi David/Francis - thanks for the current summary.

We will address your outstanding issues in the teleconf (today).

I think your 3rd issue will also be addressed in Agenda item 1.1

Cheers - Renato


On 22 Nov 2010, at 20:36, David Martin wrote:

> Renato,
> 
> At the end of last week Francis and I did a round-up of points that we think need to be resolved in order for us to aim for interoperability between ONIX for Licensing Terms (OLT) and ODRL in those areas where the domain of OLT overlaps with that of ODRL.
> 
> We want to avoid any confusion between issues relating to ACAP (in which I am not personally involved) and those relating to OLT (on which Francis and I work together).  Also, we want to clarify that we are considering an OLT profile, not an ONIX-PL profile.  ONIX-PL is a first application of OLT, which happens to be much more advanced than others, but also happens to be dealing with a domain which doesn't comfortably overlap with ODRL, because of its inherent ambiguities and because the aim is primarily to enable structured information to be delivered to people (library staff and users) rather than to be used for machine decision.
> 
> We would therefore provisionally limit the OLT domain which we would like to be able to express in ODRL to those applications in which Permissions and Prohibitions are unambiguous.
> 
> In all currently planned OLT applications, the basic "building block" is what we refer to as a "Usage" entity, which for the purposes of mapping to ODRL is either a single Permission or a single Prohibition, in either case referring to a single Action.  In some contexts there may be definite reasons for treating a single instance as a separate entity; in other contexts they will be packaged into a complete set of Usage Terms.
> 
> We have been looking, therefore, at what we think is needed in the ODRL Core Model to enable us to express each OLT Usage as a single ODRL Policy (although it probably wouldn't matter if there were cases where a single OLT Usage had to be expressed as two or more ODRL Policies).
> 
> At this point we have found only three issues, all of which have already come up one way or another in recent emails:
> 
> 1.  We need to be able to refer in an ODRL Policy to Assets other than the Asset used or Assets related to Duties, and to specify their role or function in relation to the Action.  You have indicated that this will be on the agenda for your WG call tomorrow.
> 
> 2.  We identified the 'relax' attribute on a Duty as inadequate to express the range of variations that might arise in practice.  You proposed a solution, and again you have said that it will be on the WG agenda.
> 
> 3.  Finally, it follows from what I have said above that we need to be able to map an OLT Usage into an ODRL Policy which carries only a Prohibition. Picking up on your latest exchange with Francis, we would like you to consider making this admissible within the generic Core Model; but failing that, it would have to be part of an OLT Profile.
> 
> We are continuing to work on OLT developments related to applications other than ONIX-PL, and looking at how they relate to ODRL, and it is possible that something else may come up within the timescale for publication of ODRL Version 2; but we haven't spotted anything else so far...
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> David
> --
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Odrl-version2 mailing list
> Odrl-version2 at odrl.net
> http://odrl.net/mailman/listinfo/odrl-version2_odrl.net

Cheers

Renato Iannella
ODRL Initiative
http://odrl.net