[Odrl-version2] Use of the "attribute" action in a duty

[Francis Cave]

In an ACAP use case we are looking at the use of the "attribute" action in a
duty. The Common Vocabulary makes it clear that the action of this kind can
be quite terse, i.e. leave implicit the question of how the action is to be
performed. For example:

 

<o:permission>

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

     <o:asset uid="myAssetURI"/>

     <o:duty>

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

     </o:duty>

     <o:role function="o:assignee"/>

</o:permission>

 

I am assuming that there isn't a need to identify the party with role
"assignee", because this is in a policy of type "set", and the assignee is
to whomever the content is supplied and the rights are being assigned.

 

If the is an attribution notice with a known URI, this would be mentioned in
the duty:

 

<o:permission>

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

     <o:asset uid="myAssetURI"/>

     <o:duty>

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

           <o:asset uid="myAttributionNoticeURI"/>

     </o:duty>

     <o:role function="o:assignee"/>

</o:permission>

 

Presumably the attribution notice would identify the attributed party, but
this could always be explicitly included as follows:

 

<o:permission>

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

     <o:asset uid="myAssetURI"/>

     <o:duty>

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

           <o:asset uid="myAttributionNoticeURI"/>

           <o:role function="o:attributedParty" uid="attributedPartyURI"/>

     </o:duty>

     <o:role function="o:assignee"/>

</o:permission>

 

So far, so good. The main question is this: if the ODRL expression is
embedded in the asset to which it relates, and the attribution notice is
also embedded (somewhere else) in the asset, what are the options for
formulating URIs for the asset and for the embedded attribution notice? If
the asset (and embedded notice) is an XML document, there may be identifiers
that can be used, but this may not always be the case and it may be
undesirable to have to add IDs to everything.

 

Can anyone see a reason why one shouldn't use XPointer in cases where the
asset is an XML asset? This would enable the asset as a whole to be
represented by the XPath expression for the document root, e.g.

 

     <o:asset uid="#xpointer(/)"/>

 

Similarly an XPath expression could locate the attribution notice in a
variety of ways, depending upon the schema to which the asset XML conforms,
e.g.:

 

If there happens to be an ID on the element in question:

 

          <o:asset uid="#xpointer(//*[@id='attributionNotice'])"/>

 

Or if the preceding element contains the title 'Attribution Notice':

 

          <o:asset uid="#xpointer(//*[preceding-sibling::*[1]='Attribution
Notice'])"/>

 

Or if there is a handy XML tag:

 

          <o:asset uid="#xpointer(//ns:AttributionNotice)"/>

 

Does this all make sense?

 

Francis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://odrl.net/pipermail/odrl-version2_odrl.net/attachments/20110111/a1813f54/attachment.html>