Closed matgnt closed 5 months ago
can someone tag this with v1 pre release, please?
Maybe we should distinguish the offers in the catalog from the offers within negotiation messages. The latter do have a target
attribute.
Yes, I agree. That was exactly also my conclusion :-)
See #193. Andrea and I just discussed this and think the best solution is to use the target
attribute.
I think we should not add this redundancy. There is also examples in Dcat explaining the situation as we have it right now, meaning the target is given by the enclosing context: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-3/#ex-odrl-policy
The above example does not explicitly define the ODRL Asset, so assumes the enclosing identified entity is the subject of the policy
Update from the meeting today:
Catalog -> Dataset -> hasPolicy (Offer) MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT (still discussing...) contain the target
but rather use the enclosing datasetId.
The contractRequestMessage -> dspace:Offer (Offer) MUST contain the target
(as there is no enclosing context).
The datasetId
from the contractRquestMessage will be removed.
@sebbader @jimmarino
Update from the meeting today:
Catalog -> Dataset -> hasPolicy (Offer) MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT (still discussing...) contain the
target
but rather use the enclosing datasetId.
We agreed for "MUST NOT"
https://github.com/International-Data-Spaces-Association/ids-specification/blob/eadbaa04bbed499eb76207e92e140535a5c367bc/model/model.md?plain=1#L70
but examples do contain the
target
, e.g. here: https://github.com/International-Data-Spaces-Association/ids-specification/blob/ca29dbf6e720bf2a1304d6d4fd3dc963a49fcb10/negotiation/message/contract-request-message.json#L7and also diagrams do contain the
target
as for example here: https://github.com/International-Data-Spaces-Association/ids-specification/blob/main/negotiation/contract.negotiation.protocol.md#1-contractrequestmessage-- Matthias Binzer