Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces the Cross-Level Design Principle to analyze the normative implications of ODRL policy evaluators, emphasizing the necessity of both conduct-level and competence-level positions in understanding permissions, prohibitions, and duties. The authors demonstrate that current ODRL frameworks inadequately specify permissions and only partially address obligations, revealing gaps in their normative structure. By grounding ODRL in the UFO-L ontology and expanding its legal coverage, they clarify the authority dynamics involved in norm violation, verified through rigorous formal methods.
ODRL frameworks may leave critical gaps in normative clarity, risking misinterpretations of permissions and obligations in policy enforcement.
ODRL policy evaluators produce verdicts, but say nothing about the normative positions a policy brings into existence, the authority structures those positions presuppose, or who holds the power to declare a norm violated. We formulate the Cross-Level Design Principle: any normative language with violable, consequential norms requires both conduct-level positions (Permission, Duty, Right, No right) and competence-level positions (Power, Subjection, Immunity, Disability). Applying this to ODRL, we establish that prohibition is sanctioned (violation possible and consequential), that permission is underspecified across its behaviour parameter (open vs. closed world), and that the formal semantics covers achievement obligations only. We ground ODRL in UFO-L, mapping each activated rule to a simple legal relator and extending coverage from two to eight legal positions; violation-declaration authority, implicit in every existing evaluator, becomes an explicit Power-Subjection pair. All axioms are mechanically verified in Isabelle/HOL and across a 39-problem benchmark under Vampire, E, and Z3.