[Odrl-version2] DMAG-UPF comments on ODRL 2.0 Requirements

[Renato Iannella]

Thanks Jaime (et al) for you comments.

Some followup remarks:

Comment 1 - Status Information
I agree that we are getting close to the implementation level, however, 
consider the case
of exporting content (from DRM system A to B) where there is a 10-use 
license and you have
already used 5 of them. When the user (on a trusted client) exports the 
content, the license
must say "5" and not "10" in the count constraint. I think the key is 
that the client is
trusted. If it is trusted, then it should be able to re-write the 
license information
(for cases like export). However, if this is not the case (and ODRL can 
make no assumptions
on the trustworthiness of clients)  then it may not be feasible.

Comment 2 - first time constraint
This is almost like a "special" constraint on the license itself. Once 
any of
the permissions are used/started, then you have X days (or whatever) to 
complete
the usages.

Comment 3 - content id
You could include the id of the creator in the asset <context>. Then 
such
permissions as <modify> could be constrained to <individual>'s with the 
same id.

Comment 4 - RDF Model
I think we need the normative model in UML, but can have expressions in 
other
models, such as RDF. (My main concern over just RDF is the lack of 
commercial
tools to parse/validate RDF/XML and RDF Schemas.)
We are keenly interested in the "better specification of ODRL 
semantics" as this is
a core requirement. Are there any "real-world" examples of defining 
such formalised
semantics in RDF(OWL?) ?
The auto-convert of XML to RDF/XML seems OK. I assume that what you are 
really doing is
explicitly exposing the dataTypes in the instance document now?
(A small note, as RDF does not like attributes, you need to convert the 
currency
attribute to a property of the Payment...)


Cheers

Renato Iannella
http://renato.iannella.it