State of the World for Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) Evaluator

Living Document,

This version:
https://w3id.org/force/sotw
Previous Versions:
Issue Tracking:
GitHub
Editors:
(Ghent University - imec)
(Ghent University - imec)
License:
CC-BY-SA-4.0

Abstract

TODO

1. Introd­uction

TODO: write full text Mention ODRL [ODRL-model] [odrl-vocab]

Formal Semantics spec [odrl-formal-semantics]

1.1. Terminology

ODRL Compliance Report
A vocabulary that is used to elaborate the result of an evaluation of an ODRL Policy, (optionally) ODRL Request and the State of the World. It elaborates not only whether a rule from a policy is active, but also why.
ODRL Evaluator
A system that determines whether the Rules of an ODRL Policy expression have meet their intended action performance.
State of the World
A set of knowledge representing real-world information aiding the evaluation of ODRL Policies.

2. State of the World Representation

Minimal set of information that needs to be represented in the SotW and existing terms that can be reused to represent it:

Example: ex:currentTime dct:issued "2024-01-01T00:00:00"^^xsd:dateTime .

Example: ex:location dpv:hasLocation loc:BE .

Example:

ex:asset odrl:partOf ex:assetCollection .
ex:alice odrl:partOf ex:partyIdentifier.

Example:

ex:policyReport a report:PolicyReport ;
    dcterms:created "2024-02-12T11:20:10.999Z"^^xsd:dateTime ;
    report:policy ex:policy ;
    report:ruleReport ex:dutyReport .
ex:dutyReport a report:DutyReport ;
    report:attemptState report:Attempted ;
    report:rule ex:duty ;
    report:performanceState report:Performed ;
    report:deonticState report:Fulfilled .
ex:duty a odrl:Duty ;
    odrl:action odrl:compensate ;
    odrl:assignee ex:alice .

Note: Should we be explicit about the context on which this SotW is valid? First thought to make this happen is to model SotW as a concept and have properties to connect an instance of SotW with contextual information that describes that SotW. Example:

ex:sotw a sotw:SotW ;
    sotw:currentTime ex:currentTime ;
    sotw:location ex:location ;
    sotw:assetCollection ex:assetCollection ;
    ...

3. Supporting Materials

4. Namespaces

Commonly used namespace prefixes used in this specification:

@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix dpv:     <https://w3id.org/dpv#> .
@prefix ex:      <http://example.org/> .
@prefix loc:     <https://w3id.org/dpv/loc#> .
@prefix odrl:    <http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/> .
@prefix report:  <https://w3id.org/force/compliance-report#> .
@prefix sotw:    <https://w3id.org/force/sotw#> .
@prefix rdf:     <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix xsd:     <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .

Conformance

Conformance requirements are expressed with a combination of descriptive assertions and RFC 2119 terminology. The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in the normative parts of this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. However, for readability, these words do not appear in all uppercase letters in this specification.

All of the text of this specification is normative except sections explicitly marked as non-normative, examples, and notes. [RFC2119]

Examples in this specification are introduced with the words “for example” or are set apart from the normative text with class="example", like this:

This is an example of an informative example.

Informative notes begin with the word “Note” and are set apart from the normative text with class="note", like this:

Note, this is an informative note.

Index

Terms defined by this specification

References

Normative References

[ODRL-FORMAL-SEMANTICS]
Nicoletta Fornara; et al. ODRL Formal Semantics. URL: https://w3c.github.io/odrl/formal-semantics/
[ODRL-model]
Renato Iannella; Serena Villata. ODRL Information Model 2.2. URL: https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/
[ODRL-VOCAB]
Renato Iannella; et al. ODRL Vocabulary & Expression 2.2. URL: https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/
[RFC2119]
S. Bradner. Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. March 1997. Best Current Practice. URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119