This document discusses the importance of providing a formal semantics for ODRL.
The Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) is a policy expression language that can be used to represent permitted, prohibited, and obligated actions over a certain asset.
The ODRL Information Model formally defines the core abstract concepts of the model and their properties by means of an OWL 2 Ontology (available at https://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/), which is described in the ODRL Vocabulary & Expression specification.
The ODRL ontology can be used as a data model to represent machine-readable Policies and associate them with digital or analog assets. By using a machine-readable language to represent policies, ODRL implementations can provide useful functionalities such as those of a policy search engine, a policy compatibility checker, an access control system, a monitoring system, or a policy planning system.
However, neither the specification of the model (in a text form) nor the vocabulary (in an OWL ontology) accurately describes the behaviour of an ODRL implementation.
Therefore this specification defines the expected behaviour of an ODRL Evaluator.
(A previous proposal of an ODRL evaluator is available here:
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Evaluator.)
The ODRL Evaluator is expected to work in at least one of these two scenarios:
type
(a list of actions types is available in
the ODRL Common Vocabulary),
the agent that is the performer
of the action,
the object
upon which the action is carried out,
the atTime
when the action happens or starts.This document describes the expected behaviour of this ODRL Evaluator, with a textual description, a formal semantics and a collection of examples.
odrl:Permission
, odrl:Prohibition
and odrl:Duty
.odrl:Duty
may have the following different meanings in ODRL:
odrl:Duty
represents an Obligation when it is connected to the odrl:Policy
through the odrl:obligation
property.
An Obligation can be activated, violated, or fullfilled.odrl:Duty
represents a Condition for a Permission to be active when it is connected to the odrl:Permission
through the odrl:duty property.
When an instance of the odrl:Duty
class is used as an activation condition of a Permission, it can be active, fulfilled or not fullfilled.
This is a crucial difference between a Duty that represents an activation condition of a Permission and a Duty that represents an Obligation.
odrl:Duty
represents a consequence (sanction) when it is connected to the odrl:Duty
through the odrl:consequence
property. odrl:Duty
represents a remedy for a odrl:Prohibition when it is connected to the odrl:Duty
through the odrl:remedy
property. type
,
performer
, object
,...) that matches with the values
described in the Rule (i.e. action
, assignee
,target
)
is actually performed at a given instant of time and its performance is represented in the state of the world.http://example.com/document:1234
to be distributed,
it includes a constraint C that the permission can only be exercised until 2018-01-01.{ "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld", "@type": "Set", "uid": "http://example.com/policy:6163", "profile": "http://example.com/odrl:profile:10", "permission": [{ "target": "http://example.com/document:1234", "assigner": "http://example.com/org:616", "action": "distribute", "constraint": [{ "leftOperand": "dateTime", "operator": "lt", "rightOperand": { "@value": "2018-01-01", "@type": "xsd:date" } }] }] }
ID | P6163.Const | P6163 |
---|---|---|
E13-1 | satisfied | active |
E13-2 | not-satisfied | inactive |
type
is distribute
and its object
is equale to http://example.com/document:1234
and the permission P6163 is active then the action is performed, otherwise it is blocked.type
equal to distribute
and object
is equale to http://example.com/document:1234
is
performed (it is represented in the state of the world as performed)
when the permission is active, then the permission is used.http://example.com/document:1234
to be printed and also include a refinement indicating that the resolution
of the printing action must be less than or equal to 1200 dpi.{ "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld", "@type": "Set", "uid": "http://example.com/policy:6161", "profile": "http://example.com/odrl:profile:10", "permission": [{ "target": "http://example.com/document:1234", "assigner": "http://example.com/org:616", "action": [{ "rdf:value": { "@id": "odrl:print" }, "refinement": [{ "leftOperand": "resolution", "operator": "lteq", "rightOperand": { "@value": "1200", "@type": "xsd:integer" }, "unit": "http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dots_per_inch" }] }] }] }
type
is print
,
its object
is equale to http://example.com/document:1234
,
and its resolution
is less than or equal to 1200 dpi (it satisfies the refinement) then the permission P6161
is active and the attempted action is performed, otherwise the permission P6161 is inactive and the action is blocked.ID | P6161.action.Ref | P6161 | Attempted Action | P6161.usage state |
---|---|---|---|---|
E14-1-ac | not-satisfied by the attempted action | inactive | not-performed | not-used by the attempted action |
E14-2-ac | satisfied by the attempted action | active | performed | used by the attempted action |
type
is print
,
its object
is equale to http://example.com/document:1234
, and its
resolution
is less than or equal to 1200 dpi (it satisfies the refinement)
then the permission is used otherwise it is not used. In this scenario, the permission is active even if the refinement is not satisfied, because the activation state of the permission
is computed independently from the refinement of the regulated action.ID | P6161 | P6161.action.Ref | P6161.usage state |
---|---|---|---|
E14-1-m | active | satisfied by the performed action | used by the performed action |
E14-2-m | active | not-satisfied by the performed action | not-used by the performed action |
http://example.com/assigner:sony
. It allows the
target asset http://example.com/music/1999.mp3
to be played.
The permission includes a duty to perform the compensate action that has a refinement of payAmount
of euro 5.00.
The semantics of Permission requires that the compensate action (included in the duty) must be performed
before the play action in order to get an active permission to perform the play action.{ "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld", "@type": "Set", "uid": "http://example.com/policy:88", "profile": "http://example.com/odrl:profile:09", "permission": [{ "assigner": "http://example.com/assigner:sony", "target": "http://example.com/music/1999.mp3", "action": "play", "duty": [{ "action": [{ "rdf:value": { "@id": "odrl:compensate" }, "refinement": [{ "leftOperand": "payAmount", "operator": "eq", "rightOperand": { "@value": "5.00", "@type": "xsd:decimal" }, "unit": "http://dbpedia.org/resource/Euro" }] }] }] }] }The Permission P88 is active if its Duty is fulfilled, otherwise it is inactive. The Duty has not Constraints, so it never inactive, it starts to be active and can become fulfilled when in the state of the world there is a representation that a payment action of 5 euro to the assigner of the permission is performed.
ID | Duty.Action.Ref | Duty |
---|---|---|
E22 | not satisfied by performed actions | active |
E22 | satisfied by the correct payment action | fulfilled |
type
is play
and its object
is equale to http://example.com/music/1999.mp3
and the Permission P88 is active then the action is performed, otherwise it is blocked.ID | Duty | P88 | Attempted Action | P88.usage state |
---|---|---|---|---|
E22-1-ac | active | inactive | not-performed | not-used by the attempted action |
E22-2-ac | fulfilled | active | performed | used by the attempted action |
type
is play
and its object
is equale to http://example.com/music/1999.mp3
and the Permission P88 is active then the Permission is used, if the Permission P88 is inactive the permission is not used
(there might be a violation but it depends on the other permissions and the default assumption
as to what is prohibited).
ID | Duty | P88 | P88.Action | P88.usage state |
---|---|---|---|---|
E22-1-m | active | inactive | performed | not-used |
E22-2-m | fulfilled | active | performed | used |
odrl:consequence
for its violation. odrl:Duty
class (it would be better to have an odrl:Obligation
class) is active (its action,
with all refinements satisfied, should be perfomed) if all constraints of the Rule are satisfied, otherwise it is inactive.odrl:consequence
of not fulfilling that obligation. The RDF1.1. Semantics defines a model-theoretic semantics to determine the validity of RDF inference processes. A similar approach is followed by the OWL Semantics, a recommendation providing the direct model-theoretic semantics for OWL 2 and definingthe most common inference problems.
XPath (XML Path Language) is a language that can be used to navigate through elements and attributes in an XML document, and it also has formal semantics. XQuery (XML Query) is a query and functional programming language to query XML data. The "XQuery and XPath Formal Semantics" intends to complement the specification by defining the meaning of XQuery/XPath expressions with mathematical rigor; thus clarifying the intended meaning of the English specification, and ensuring that no corner cases are left out. For that regard grammar productions are given.
The POWDER specification provides a mechanism to describe and discover Web resources, and it also includes a Formal Semantics document. POWDER documents are XML documents which can be automatically converted, through a GRDDL transform, into a semantically rich version in RDF (POWDER-S). The "semantics" document describes how to make such transformation.
The PROV Ontology Working Group has produced 12 specifications to facilitate the interchange of provenance information in the Web (where provenance is …information about entities, activities, and people involved in producing a piece of data or thing, which can be used to form assessments about its quality, reliability or trustworthiness"). Besides having published a PROVO Ontology to facilitate the expression of provenance as RDF, the family of documents also define an EBNF notation "which allows serializations of PROV instances to be created in a compact manner", a set of constraints to "ensure that a PROV instance represents a consistent history of objects and their interactions that is safe to use for the purpose of logical reasoning" and statements in the PROV Data Model are seen "as atomic formulas in the sense of first-order logic […and…] the constraints and inferences specified in PROV-CONSTRAINTS as a first-order theory".
ODRL was created in in the early 2000's as an XML dialect to represent rights expressions to be used in the framework of Digital Rights Management systems; and its version 1.1 gained much spread [ODRL02]. Different ODRL profiles extended the vocabulary to satisfy the needs in different sectors. In 2011, an ODRL W3C Community Group was established, publishing soon after a new version 2.1 with major changes which included a new information model [Ianella15], a vocabulary [Ianella15b] and an Ontology [McRoberts15]. ODRL 2.1 became then a policy language.Other specifications in XML and similar to ODRL were MPEG-21 Rights Expression Language [Wang94], XACML or MPEG-21 Contracts Expression Language [Rodríguez15]. The MPEG-21 Media Contracts Ontology [Rodriguez16] defines an ontology to guide the generation of contracts as RDF, with a similar philosophy to that of the ODRL Ontology.
RDF documents instantiating the "Policy" class of the ODRL Ontology or using the XML or JSON syntaxes are called simply "ODRL Policies". The ODRL Ontology is already a formalization of the ODRL information model and vocabulary. The ontology of the version 2.1 consists of 1111 axioms with low complexity, but a comprehensive definition of each element (classes and relations) and a systematic definition of domains and ranges for the properties. Some ODRL concepts are represented as SKOS concepts ordered in SKOS collection. Reasoning with the ontology would be computationally inexpensive, but the usefulness of the possible reasoning tasks with the ontology is very limited.
The ODRL 2.1 Ontology is not the first ODRL Ontology and other ontologies had been proposed before [García05][Kasten10]. However, neither these ontologies nor the ODRL 2.1 Ontology directly supported any reasoning tasks of practical use. Other more generic rights ontologiesexist, claiming tocomprise the concepts of ODRL, with the ambition of facilitating interoperability. Thus, Delgado (2003) and Nadah (2007) have proposed ontologies as a bridge to make transformation between rights expression languages like ODRL and MPEG-21 REL, whereas Rodríguez (2013) underlined the similarities of seven policy languages with an ontology design pattern. Other alternative means of achieving interoperability do not require ontologies, as Guth did (2003) defining an abstract object model.
Some other formalizations of ODRL have been proposed with the purpose of determining whether a request is permitted given a set of policies and a certain history of events:we can name this task as theauthorisation decision.With that purpose, Gunter and Pucella had defined general logics for rights (2001 and 2002 respectively). Pucella then extended his work to model ODRL1.1 statements (2004) as formulas in a many-sorted first-order logic with equality,to determinewhether a permission was implied by a set of ODRL statements. Holzer et al. (2004) also enriched the authorisation decision modelling the dynamic aspects of licenses with finite-automata like structures (useful when the property of an asset is transferred, or when the number of plays is limited to a certain number of times). Chong et al. (2006) modelled licenses with multiset rewritingand logic programming (Prolog), including the ability to evaluate and merge licenses and to track the dynamic aspects of the rights evolution. Barth and Mitchell (2006) observed that the authorisation decision of a sequence of actions given a set of ODRL licenses is NP-complete because of the interval constraints, and proposed using propositional linear logic to grant efficient computability. Sheppard and Sfavi(2009) defined an algorithm for the authorisation decision with some of the most common ODRL elements, giving the pseudo-code for a virtual machine. Steyskal and Polleres (2015) defined an abstract syntax for expressing ODRL policies, where the dependencies among ODRL actions and the different conflict resolution strategies were explicitly considered in the rules for taking the authorisation decision.
Besides the problems of facilitating interoperability and making the authorisation decision, other problems of interest have been modeled with formalizations of ODRL. One of them is how to evaluate the compatibility and composition of licenses, useful when handling with differently licensed content or data. In this line, Gangadharan et al. (2007)proposed a matchmaking algorithm to analyze the compatibility of licenses and make license compositions; Jamkhedkarand Heileman (2008) showed how the combination of ODRL, CreativeCommons REL and the XrML (embryo of the MPEG-21 REL) licenses was possible with an abstract model and several rules. Villata and Gandon (2012) also defined a framework with algorithms to validate compatibility and to obtain composite licenses. Rotolo et al. (2013) defined a deontic logic system for the composition of licenses, with strict rules, defasible rules and defeater rules. More recent critics
It is evident that some policies can be used to grant automated access to resources. For example, verifying the execution of a payment can be automatically done. However, the satisfaction of some constraints cannot be digitally evaluated. Policies then play a double role, as automatable expressions in a computer system and as constracts with a certain legal value. Steyskal and Kirrane (2015) show how to use ODRL to specify access requests, data offers and agreements, distinguishing between enforceable and non-enforceable access policies, proposing an algorithm to auto-generate contracts for the latter.
In more recent efforts, de Vos et al. (2019) transforms ODRL expressions into Answer Set Programming to model policies and check compliance – specifically in the area of personal data processing, where ODRL has also been recently used (Esteves et al. 2021). Other profiles and initiatives have been proposed (Kim et al. 2020), on despite of several limitations found by Kebede at al. (2020).
In Fornara and Colombetti (2019) the ODRL 2.2 policy language has been extended in two directions. Firstly, by inserting in the model the notion of activation event, secondly, by considering the temporal aspects of obligations, permissions, and prohibitions
(e.g. expiration dates and deadlines) as part of the application independent model of policies.
References
[Wieringa93] Wieringa, R. J., & Meyer, J. J. C. (1993). Applications of deontic logic in computer science: A concise overview. Deontic logic in computer science, pp. 17-40 John Wiley & Sons.
[Gunter01] Gunter, C. A., Weeks, S. T., & Wright, A. K. (2001, January). Models and languages for digital rights. In System Sciences, 2001. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 5-pp). IEEE.
[ODRL02] Ianella, R. Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) Version 1.1.
Formerly available online.
[Pucella02] Pucella, R., &Weissman, V. (2002). A logic for reasoning about digital rights. In Computer Security Foundations Workshop, 2002. Proceedings. 15th IEEE (pp. 282-294). IEEE.
[XACML03] Anderson, A., Nadalin, A., Parducci, B., Engovatov, D., Lockhart, H., Kudo, M., ... & Moses, T. (2003). extensible access control markup language (xacml) version 1.0. OASIS.
[Delgado03] Delgado, J., Gallego, I., Llorente, S., & García, R. (2003, December). IPROnto: An ontology for digital rights management. In 16th Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, JURIX (Vol. 106).
[Guth03] Guth, S., Neumann, G., &Strembeck, M. (2003, October). Experiences with the enforcement of access rights extracted from ODRL-based digital contracts. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM workshop on Digital rights management (pp. 90-102). ACM.
[Pucella04] RiccardoPucella , Vicky Weissman. A formal foundation for ODRL, In Proc. of the Workshop on Issues in the Theory of Security (WIST’04)
[Wang04] Wang, X. (2004). MPEG-21 rights expression language: Enabling interoperable digital rights management. IEEE MultiMedia, 11(4), 84-87.
[García05] García, R., Gil, R., Gallego, I., & Delgado, J. (2005, July). Formalising ODRL semantics using web ontologies. In Proc. 2nd Intl. ODRL Workshop (pp. 1-10).
[Barth06] Adam Barth and John C. Mitchell. Managing digital rights using linear logic. In LICS ’06: Proceedings of the 21st Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 127–136,Washington, DC, USA, 2006. IEEE Computer Society
[Chong06] Chong, C. N., Corin, R., Doumen, J., Etalle, S., Hartel, P., Law, Y. W., &Tokmakoff, A. (2006). LicenseScript: a logical language for digital rights management. Annals of Telecommunications, 61(3), 284-331.
[Nadah07] Nadia Nadah, Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, Bruno Bachimont. Licensing Digital Content With
A Generic Ontology: Escaping From The Rights Expression Language Jungle. ACM. ICAIL2007 - 11th international conference on Articial intelligence and law, Jun 2007, Stanford, United States. pp.65-69, 2007, Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Articial intelligence and law
[Gangadharan07] Gangadharan G.R., Weiss M., D’Andrea V., Iannella R. (2007) Service License Composition and Compatibility Analysis. In: Krämer B.J., Lin KJ., Narasimhan P. (eds) Service-Oriented Computing – ICSOC 2007. ICSOC 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4749. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
[Jamkhedkar08] Pramod Arvind Jamkhedkar, Gregory L. Heileman. Conceptual Model For Rights. Proceedings of the 8th ACM workshop on Digital rights management Pages 29-38, 2008
[Sheppard09] Sheppard, N. P., &Safavi-Naini, R. (2009, November). On the operational semantics of rights expression languages. In Proceedings of the nineth ACM workshop on Digital rights management (pp. 17-28). ACM.
[Kasten10] Andreas Kasten and Rüdiger Grimm. Making the Semantics of ODRL and URM Explicit Using Web Ontologies. Virtual Goods, pages 77–91, 2010.
[Villata12] Serena Villata and FabienGandon. Licenses compatibilityand composition in the web of data. In The 2ndInternational Workshop on Consuming Linked Data.2012.
[Rodriguez13] Rodríguez-Doncel, V., Suárez-Figueroa, M. C., Gómez-Pérez, A., & Poveda-Villalón, M. (2013, October). License linked data resources pattern. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Ontology and Semantic Web Patterns-Volume 1188 (pp. 84-87). CEUR-WS. org.
[Rotolo13] Antonino Rotolo, Serena Villata, and Fabien Gandon. A deontic logic semantics
for licenses composition in the web of data. In Int’l Conf. on Artificial Intelligence
and Law ICAIL, pages 111–120, 2013.
[Steyskal14] Simon Steyskal and Axel Polleres. Defining expressive access policies for linked data using the ODRL ontology 2.0. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Semantic Systems, SEMANTICS 2014, Leipzig, Germany, September 4-5, 2014, pages 20–23, 2014
[Cabrio14] Elena Cabrio, Alessio Palmero Aprosio, and Serena Villata. These are your rights - A natural language processing approach to automated RDF licenses generation. In The Semantic Web: Trends and Challenges - 11th International Conference, ESWC 2014, Anissaras, Crete, Greece, May 25-29, 2014. Proceedings, pages 255– 269, 2014
[Ianella15b] R. Iannella, M. Steidl, S. Guth (eds). Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) Version 2.1 – Common Vocabulary. Final Specification, W3C ODRL Community Group
http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/vocab/2.1/
[Ianella15] R. Iannella& S. Guth& D. Paehler& A. Kasten (eds). Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) Version 2.1 – Core Model. Final Specification, W3C ODRL Community Group. http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/
[McRoberts15] M. McRoberts, V. Rodríguez Doncel. Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) Version 2.1 – Ontology. Final Specification, W3C ODRL Community Group
http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/
[Rodriguez15] Rodríguez, E., Delgado, J., Boch, L., & Rodríguez-Doncel, V. (2015). Media Contract Formalization Using a Standardized Contract Expression Language. IEEE multimedia, 22(2), 64-74.
[Steyskal15] Steyskal, S., &Kirrane, S. (2015). If you can't enforce it, contract it: Enforceability in Policy-Driven (Linked) Data Markets. In SEMANTiCS (Posters & Demos) (pp. 63-66).
[Steyskal15b] Steyskal, S., &Polleres, A. (2015, August). Towards formal semantics for ODRL policies. In International Symposium on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web (pp. 360-375). Springer International Publishing.
[Rodriguez16] Rodríguez-Doncel, V., Delgado, J., Llorente, S., Rodríguez, E., & Boch, L. (2016). Overview of the MPEG-21 Media Contract Ontology. Semantic Web, 7(3), 311-332.
[DeVos19] De Vos, M., Kirrane, S., Padget, J., & Satoh, K. (2019, September). ODRL policy modelling and compliance checking. In International Joint Conference on Rules and Reasoning (pp. 36-51). Springer, Cham.
[Kebede20] Kebede, M. G., Sileno, G., & van Engers, T. (2020). A critical reflection on ODRL. Springer Lecture Notes Artificial Intelligence, AICOL2021, to appear.
[Kim20] Kim, J. M., & Chung, H. S. (2020). ODRL Ontology Extention Model and Prototype Design for the Specification of the Rights to use Digital Contents. Journal of Convergence for Information Technology, 10(1), 13-21.
[Esteves21] Esteves, B., Pandit, H. J., & Rodrıguez-Doncel, V. ODRL Profile for Expressing Consent through Granular Access Control Policies in Solid. To appear, proc. of the Workshop on Consent Management in Online Services, Networks and Things (COnSeNT) - co-located with IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P 2021)
[Fornara19] N. Fornara and M. Colombetti. Using Semantic Web Technologies and Production Rules for Reasoning on Obligations, Permissions, and Prohibitions. AI Communications, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 319-334, 2019.
Document Conventions
Prefix
Namespace
Description
odrl
http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/
[[odrl-vocab]] [[odrl-model]]
rdf
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
[[rdf11-concepts]]
rdfs
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
[[rdf-schema]]
owl
http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
[[owl2-overview]]
xsd
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
[[xmlschema11-2]]
skos
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#
[[skos-reference]]
dcterms
http://purl.org/dc/terms/
[[dcterms]]
vcard
http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#
[[vcard-rdf]]
foaf
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
[[foaf]]
schema
http://schema.org/
schema.org
cc
https://creativecommons.org/ns#
creativecommons.org
ex
http://example.com/ns#