You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The ODRL Evaluator takes a request as input.
Whereas ODRL declares a odrl:Request policy in the context of negotiation (official definition reads "A Policy that proposes a Rule over an Asset from an assignee"), the need to represent a request in the context of evaluation is clearly different --in no case "a request" should be a type of "policy". Therefore, for the sole purpose of representing a request to the ODRL Evaluator, it is proposed to adopt the openId style. See this example (related to E13-1):
It is worth observing that this proposal is only relevant in relation to the Formal Semantics (e.g. description of an ODRL Evaluator).
Unless there is an objection, we will describe this in the Formal Semantics document. (@riannella@besteves4@AndreaCimminoArriaga@ALL)
The ODRL Evaluator takes a request as input.
Whereas ODRL declares a odrl:Request policy in the context of negotiation (official definition reads "A Policy that proposes a Rule over an Asset from an assignee"), the need to represent a request in the context of evaluation is clearly different --in no case "a request" should be a type of "policy". Therefore, for the sole purpose of representing a request to the ODRL Evaluator, it is proposed to adopt the
openId style. See this example (related to E13-1):
It is worth observing that this proposal is only relevant in relation to the Formal Semantics (e.g. description of an ODRL Evaluator).
Unless there is an objection, we will describe this in the Formal Semantics document. (@riannella @besteves4 @AndreaCimminoArriaga @ALL)
This issue is open in the context of the ODRL Formal Semantics meeting held in Madrid, with the agreement of @fornaran @YassirSellami @vroddon and @joshcornejo.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: