[Odrl-version2] Questions and comments for ODRL v2

[luomae at cc.jyu.fi]

Greetings from snowy Central Finland,

few questions and comments regarding the contents of requirements document
for version 2 and development effort in general:

- From requirements management point of view, should there be an
indication whether certain requirements are mandatory (version 2 SHALL
have..) or discretionary (version 2 SHOULD have..)?

- Since it seems that ODRL is concentrating in describing the semantics of
contracts, I would promote inclusion of additional context elements, which
will help in the interpretation of ODRL rights expressions and supported
data dictionary: 1) Geopolitical context or as Milosevic and Bond (1995)
define it, the Contract Domain, 2) Content Type/Industry context
(interpretation of ODRL elements with e.g. different content types).

- To Requirement 1.3 concerning status information: I believe the versio
1.1 already implements this requirement. Since the status of an attribute
(i.e. attribute value) cannot be stated in the license as Jaime Delgado
argumented, it needs to be maintained in the server side where it can be
retrieved. Therefore, an external reference needs to be included to an
ODRL document. Such mechanism already exists in the ODRL context model. I
find the requirement 1.22. to be rather similar.

- Requirement 1.5. additional contract parties is interesting an needed.
However, my concern is that can you bound a third party to certain
obligation by contract made by another party (?). I believe this should
not
be possible.

- I would additionally promote providing semantics for the "abstract"
elements in the permission model, namely, ALL usage, reuse, transfer and
asset management rights. It would be helpful in streamlining ODRL
documents in cases where contract assigns e.g. ALL reuse rights to a party
or where contract does not explicitly say which reuse rights are assigned.

- Is it currently possible to express in ODRL document whether a party is
allowed to publicly present (e.g. in educational context) a piece of
content, otherwise than using user or target constraints? I'd find more
simplified way of expressing extremely useful.

BR,

-Eetu

Eetu Luoma, project manager
Dr.Elma project (www.it.jyu.fi/elma/)
luomae at cc.jyu.fi, +358 40 739 3075