[Odrl-version2] Questions and comments for ODRL v2

[Renato Iannella]

On 1 Dec 2004, at 08:33, luomae at cc.jyu.fi wrote:

> - 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..)?

We did not add specific "MUST/SHOULD/MAY" like Requirements until we
were sure of the implications. That is, if we said that Req X was "MUST"
and we could not find a way to implement it, does that mean we failed?

I think we can easily say that all the Requirements are "SHOULD" and 
that
means we must supply a good reason for NOT meeting it and also 
understand
the full implications of this. (We MUST add this to the introduction
of the Requirements document ;-)

Alternatively, we can add the words MUST/SHOULD/MAY to each requirement.
(and/or decide on MUST versus SHOULD versus MAY...)

What do other think?

Of course in the final V2 Spec, we will use this consistent terminology
for the actual language.

> - 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).

We did add <pLocation> to the Context to enable the "jurisdiction" of
the license to be added. If there are specific elements to ensure the
Agreements are "contractually valid" then we should make this clear
in V2.

Cheers

Renato Iannella
ODRL Initiative
http://odrl.net