RE: [rights-examples] ln00x use case discussion

["DuCharme, Bob (LNG)" <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>]

Title: RE: [rights-examples] ln00x use case discussion

(First, in response to another message you sent)

 

>Another interesting thing people have proposed (that you might be
>interested in) is the use of "resource classes".  In this instance,
>each resource indicates which resource class they are in.  Licenses
>are then written for "any resource" in a specific class.  In essence,
>the licenseId approach is an example of a resource class approach
>where the resource classes are defined by a particular license id.
>You can expand this, though, to make a generic resource class id with
>the advantage being that you can later issue new licenses refering to
>that generic resource class without having to go find each resource
>and update it to include the new license id.  The way you would do
>this is similar to the example above but with a couple words after
>mySystem changed.

Yes, this sounds like a good fit for some of the scenarios I have in mind. Where can I find out more?

(In response to what you wrote below)

 

Your concept of assignment definitely comes closer to what I had in mind than your concept of role. "Platinum member" is a good example, to represent "any customer who has paid for a particular plan." (As with DirectTV--my family has access to the Boomerang channel because we pay for the Premium Plus plan; when we were on the Premium plan, we didn't, and couldn't watch Droopy Dog, Huckleberry Hound, etc.)

 

In addition to "all customers who paid for a certain plan," customer class "c10012" could also represent "all customers accessing our system from a particular domain." A corporate client such as a law firm may have worked out a site license deal, and we know that all customers coming from a specified domain do have access to products A, B, and C but not to D or E.

 

So, that being the case, what would be the best XrML 2.1 way to express the following element from your example?

 

>  <any principal who is a platinum member/>

thanks,

 

Bob

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: DeMartini, Thomas [mailto:Thomas.DeMartini@CONTENTGUARD.COM]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 11:07 PM
To: 'DuCharme, Bob (LNG)'; 'rights-examples@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [rights-examples] ln00x use case discussion

Something you said (about not being interested in assigning people to classes) made me wonder if we each are talking about the same thing when we say principalClass.  There are at least two kinds of principal classes I can envision.  One I will call a principal "role"; the other, a principal "assignment".  I don't really want to debate the terms "role" and "assignment" (and if they get in the way, lets use "foo" and "bar"), but my goal is to provide a framework for distinguishing between at least two of the interpretations I have in my head for "class".

Lets take principal "role" first.  This is something that "falls out" from principal interaction rather than being something written down.  For instance, I am a speaker when I speak, a writer when I write, a consumer when I consume, and a distributor when I distribute.

Principal "assignment", on the other hand, is something that is "assigned" to some principal by some other principal for some (possibly arbitrary) reason.  For instance, when I see a farmer farm, I may assign him to the group of "farmers".  Another person may assign people to the group of "farmers" based upon seeing a title showing the person's ownership of farm land.  A person may get the assignment "author of Great Expectations" by showing the same to a publisher who trusts him and getting his name on it during publication.  A person may get the assignment "sir" by being bestowed it by some royalty.  Numerous other assignments are possible: subscriber, employee, student, "platinum club member", "economy class", adult, "legal consumer", individual, business, citizen, and so on.

Now lets analyze the reason I make this distinction.  If http://www.lexisnexis.com/whatever/c10012 is a principal "role" (as defined above), for, say, consumer, then it means "any principal who consumes".  Suppose we have a way to say this, then a pseudo-grant might look like this:

<grant>
        <any principal who consumes/>
        <consume/>
        <theText/>
</grant>

(any principal who consumes can consume the text) which is actually the same as this:

<grant>
        <any principal/>
        <consume/>
        <theText/>
</grant>

(any principal can consume the text).  In other words, because "roles", by definition, "fall out" of interactions, we need only specify the rights to be given.  For instance:

<grant>
        <distributor/>
        <issue/>
        <grant>
                <any principal/>
                <consume/>
                <theText/>
        </grant>
</grant>

can equally well be read as "the distributor can issue a grant saying anyone can consume the text" or "the distributor can issue a grant saying any consumer can consume the text" because, by definition, any principal exercising the consume right will be in the consumer principal "role".

On the other hand, lets us investigate principal "assignments".  To be parallel with the preceeding example, think of "authorized consumer" or "platinum member".  In the case of principal "assignments" there is a very big difference between saying

<grant>
        <any principal/>
        <consume/>
        <theText/>
</grant>

(any principal can consume the text) and saying

<grant>
        <any principal who is a platinum member/>
        <consume/>
        <theText/>
</grant>

(any platinum member can consume the text).  The status of platinum membership does not fall out of the act of consuming.  Rather, the status of platinum membership is "assigned" to certain principals.  In this case, it is of utmost importance for the clarity of granted rights that the granter cares about how principals get "assigned" the status of platinum membership.  For instance, does the distributor do it?  a trusted third party?  the author?  some guy out of his garage?

&Thomas.