[Odrl-version2] Is a uid required for asset that itself includes the ODRL?

[Francis Cave]

There is still an argument - and I believe this is Susanne's position - that
every ODRL permission and prohibition must explicitly specify the asset(s)
to which it relates. Consider an ODRL expression that is embedded in an
asset. If there is no explicit link between an embedded permission and the
asset as a whole, this begs the question as to whether the permission
relates to the asset as a whole or just to some part of it. If the
permission does relate to some part of the asset, the link between
permission and part will have to be explicit. So only in the "normal" case
of the permission relating to the whole asset in which it is embedded will
it make sense to omit it. In many scenarios this so-called "normal" case
will probably be exceptional, not the norm.

 

In RDF I believe that the assumption is that, if the rdf:about attribute is
omitted, the resource being described is implied by the context, which in
the case of an embedded description would mean the resource containing the
description. We could, I suppose, adopt this approach in ODRL, but my
impression is that this is not the intention.

 

Francis

 

 

 

From: odrl-version2-bounces at odrl.net [mailto:odrl-version2-bounces at odrl.net]
On Behalf Of ri at odrl.net
Sent: 10 January 2011 05:19
To: ODRL-Version2
Subject: Re: [Odrl-version2] Is a uid required for asset that itself
includes the ODRL?

 

On 29 Dec 2010, at 06:49, Myles, Stuart wrote:

What if I want to include an ODRL policy within the asset itself?  In that
case, do I need to include the asset/@uid?

Let's say I am including some ODRL within a news message, which is in an XML
format such as ATOM or NewsML-G2.  If I omit the asset/@uid, will that imply
that the policy applies to the wrapper asset?  I may not actually have a URI
scheme for my news message, you see.  So, it would be convenient for me if I
don't have to make one up!

 

Stuart - currently an Asset is mandatory in the Model, but I can see the use
cases for your example.

 

In fact, if you look at the Birthday Attribute example in (in Section 6 of
the XML WD [1]), you can see that the Asset is omitted - it is assumed to be
the "parent" block of XML (in this case, the person's birthdate).

 

I think we need to add this to the Model (somehow) as the use cases for
embedding ODRL in online digital content is growing....

 

 

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/20110110/8b5af0eb/attachment.html>