Deprecate odrl:andSequence

[joshcornejo]

There are limited cases where odrl:andSequence is of (real?) value and requires the addition of complex decorations in properties describing the refinement (e.g. each leftOperand mapped to the right property in the target/function and each property having a way to describe their "chronology" or "sequence" to satisfy the andSequence evaluation).

Comments:

• In most implementations, an asset/collection will be "released" as a whole, and a version will be unlikely to be immutable.
• For parties and due to obfuscation, it is unlikely this will be of practical use
• That leaves action refinements and constraints for rules - which can be satisfied by using events that are "instantiated" to reflect any sequence required:

odrl:event odrl:isAllOf [ A list of Events ]

example:

odrl:event odrl:isAllOf [ "third of June 2025", "5b73c993-3bb2-46a6-81ec-b08fa3c24590" ] // this will return true once the SoW can find those 2 events (e.g. created)

It also allows for some easy-to-implement functionality for other use cases:

odrl:event odrl:isAnyOf [ "Monday", "Tuesday", "Wednesday", "Thursday", "Friday" ] // true for weekdays
odrl:event odrl:isNoneOf [ "Saturday", "Sunday" ]                                  // also true for weekdays

Note:

• event creation and mapping is not a problem to be solved by ODRL
• unique or private events can be represented by using uuid as above

@simonstey - I think you had some thoughts on this?

[vroddon]

andSequence is used to impose that constraints must be satisfied in a certain order. Maybe not much useful, but... what is the actual problem?

[joshcornejo]

I understand the intention of the AndSequence, but:

• For an asset collection / party collection / action would mean that there is a "way" to establish in which order each property associated with a constraint happened (to establish order).
• For a rule constraint the number of LeftOperands that apply (and the requirement to establish on an "order") is negligible if any

I've not found a use case where this will be elegant to implement, with "understandable" mechanics for all parties (the rule creator and the "world puppeteer") and as clear as using the event constraint (in one single constraint, I achieve what is required).

Considering its intentions can be achieved differently, with fewer language elements, my recommendation is to deprecate it.

[vroddon]

this week another person complained about this precise element. i have no clear opinion, but in any case it is something be labelled as ODRL3.0. I guess the temporal-related aspects should be rewritten altogether...

By the way, look at this AI-generated blogpost... do they systematically read git repos? I am astonished... https://comon.reviewpoint.org/blog/deprecate-odrl-andsequence

[joshcornejo]

Funny enough: the mail didn't want to open that link - I did open it in a private window.

That's the AI garbage coming to the open internet.