It's easy to confuse the party functions Assigner/Assignee with Subject/Object. Partly, that's because ODRL doesn't make the distinction. But we must. They describe very different roles.
The Assigner/Assignee roles identify the parties involved in the rights assignment specified by a permission. The Assigner grants the Assignee the right to exercise the permission.
The Subject/Object roles apply to duties. The Subject is the party that is responsible for exercising the action specified by the duty. The party affected by the action is the Object.
If this is clear, then one of our Object role examples in the Standard is not: "Where the action is Attach, the Object is the Party that specifies the attachment."
No, it is not. The Object is the party that receives the attachment.
Recommendation: we update the Standard to include the new definition of Subject in the context of an Attach duty.
It's easy to confuse the party functions Assigner/Assignee with Subject/Object. Partly, that's because ODRL doesn't make the distinction. But we must. They describe very different roles.
The Assigner/Assignee roles identify the parties involved in the rights assignment specified by a permission. The Assigner grants the Assignee the right to exercise the permission.
The Subject/Object roles apply to duties. The Subject is the party that is responsible for exercising the action specified by the duty. The party affected by the action is the Object.
If this is clear, then one of our Object role examples in the Standard is not: "Where the action is Attach, the Object is the Party that specifies the attachment."
No, it is not. The Object is the party that receives the attachment.
Recommendation: we update the Standard to include the new definition of Subject in the context of an Attach duty.