Service Licensing



Service marketplaces and service networks promote tradeable services on the Internet. With such business transactions the need for legal certainty and legal compliance arises. Two crucial aspects can be highlighted in this context: you need to know about what you are talking and under which jurisdiction a transaction is arranged. Both aspects are difficult to address in a machine-processable description for services. The subject matter–the what–is difficult to grasp: the service notion in USDL encompasses technical Web services to conventional business services. Furthermore, machine-processable legal attributes need to comply to the statutes of the respective country of the transaction in order to achieve enforceable legal expressions. Current models apply approaches which do not address the aforementioned aspects. We argue to overcome the difficulties by modeling legal description capabilities on the basis of the statutes. This chapter covers the modeling of licensing aspects according to two different jurisdictions. We use the copyright acts of Germany and the USA to illustrate the approach. The resulting model incorporates the terms of the statutes, for example, Work, which can be mapped to any licensable service artifact. Although certain notions such as Work have a common semantic understanding this approach requires a management of the different variants. Variants are discussed in Chapter 17.


Legal Certainty Legal Compliance Foundation Module Service License Legal Module 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    H. Abelson, B. Adida, M. Linksvayer, and N. Yergler. ccREL: The Creative Commons Rights Expression Language: Version 1.0, 3 March 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adobe Systems Incorporated. XMP Specification Part 1: Data Model, Serialization, and Core Properties, July 2010.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adobe Systems Incorporated. XMP Specification Part 2: Additional Properties, July 2010.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adobe Systems Incorporated. XMP Specification Part 3: Storage in Files, July 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Baumann, U. Kylau, and D. Oberle. Unified Service Description Language (USDL) — Legal Module. Technical Report Version 3.0, Milestone M5, SAP Research, May 2011. Available at
  6. 6.
    C. Baumann and C. Loës. Formalizing Copyright for the Internet of Services. In G. Kotsis, D. Taniar, E. Pardede, I. Saleh, and I. Khalil, editors, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services (iiWAS2010), volume 272 of, pages 712–719, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Baumann, P. Peitz, O. Raabe, and R. Wacker. Compliance for Service Based Systems Through Formalization of Law. In J. Filipe and J. Cordeiro, editors, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technology, volume 2, pages 367– 371, Valencia, Spain, 2010. INSTICC Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Contentguard. XrML 2.0 Technical Overview: Version 1.0, 8 March 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Coyle. Rights Expression Languages: A Report for the Library of Congress, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Creative Commons. CC Affiliate Network. Accessed 6 April 2011.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Creative Commons. CCPlus. Accessed 5 April 2011.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Delgado, I. Gallego, S. Llorente, and R. García. IPROnto: An Ontology for Digital Rights Management. In D. Bourcier, editor, Legal knowledge and information systems, volume 106 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 111–120, Amsterdam, 2003. IOS Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Digital Library Federation. Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard: Primer and Reference Manual, 2010.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Dreier and G. Schulze. Urheberrechtsgesetz: Urheberrechtswahrnehmungsgesetz, Kunsturhebergesetz: Kommentar. C. H. Beck, München, 3 edition, 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. R. Gangadharan. Service Licensing. PhD thesis, University of Trento, Trento, Italy, 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. R. Gangadharan, V. D’Andrea, R. Ianella, and M. Weiss. ODRL Service Licensing Profile (ODRL-S). In R. Grimm, B. H. Hass, and J. Nützel, editors, Virtual goods, pages 73–90, New York, 2008. Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. R. Gangadharan, M. Weiss, V. D’Andrea, and R. Iannella. Service License Composition and Compatibility Analysis. In B. J. Krämer, K.-J. Lin, and P. Narasimhan, editors, Service- Oriented Computing - ICSOC 2007, volume 4749 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 257–269, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. Springer.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Gangemi, N. Guarino, C. Masolo, A. Oltramari, and L. Schneider. Sweetening ontologies with dolce. In A. Gómez-Pérez and V. R. Benjamins, editors, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. Ontologies and the Semantic Web, 13th International Conference, EKAW 2002, Siguenza, Spain, October 1-4, 2002, Proceedings, volume 2473 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 166–181. Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. García. A Semantic Web approach to Digital Rights Management. PhD thesis, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, 2005.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. García, R. Gil, and J. Delgado. Intellectual Property Rights Management Using a Semantic Web Information System. In R. Meersman, T. Zahir, W. van der Aalst, C. Bussler, A. Gal, V. Cahill, S. Vinoski, W. Vogels, T. Catarci, and K. Sycara, editors, On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2004: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE, volume 3290 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 689–704, Berlin Heidelberg, 2004. Springer.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Gil, R. García, and J. Delgado. An interoperable framework for IPR using web ontologies. In M. Biasiotti, E. Francesconi, M.-T. Sagri, and J. Lehman, editors, Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques, volume 4 of IAAIL Workshop Series, pages 135–148. Wolf Legal Publishers, 2005.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    IPR Systems Pty Ltd. Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL), 8 August 2002.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ISO/IEC 21000-5:2004. Information technology – Multimedia framework (MPEG-21) – Part 5: Rights Expression Language, 1 April 2004.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Kropholler. Internationales Privatrecht: Einschliesslich der Grundbegriffe des Internationalen Zivilverfahrensrechts. Mohr Lehrbuch. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 6 edition, 2006.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    LG München I. Wirksamkeit der GNU General Public Licence (GPL) nach deutschem Recht, 19 May 2004.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    U. Loewenheim, G. Schricker, and A. Dietz, editors. Urheberrecht: Kommentar. C. H. Beck, München, 4 edition, 2010.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    OASIS. Web Services Security Rights Expression Language (REL), 1 February 2006.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    ODRL Initiative. ODRL Service (ODRL-S) Profile (Working Draft: 2 April 2008). Accessed 6 April 2011.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    ODRL Initiative. ODRL V2.0 - Common Vocabulary (Working Draft: 18 February 2011). Accessed 6 April 2011.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. J. O’Sullivan. Towards a Precise Understanding of Service Properties. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, 2006.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. Pease, I. Niles, and J. Li. Origins of the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology. In Working Notes of the AAAI-2002 Workshop on Ontologies and the Semantic Web, Edmonton, Canada, July 28-August 1, 2002, 2002.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    O. Raabe, R. Wacker, C. Funk, D. Oberle, and C. Baumann. Lawful Service Engineering – Formalisierung des Rechts im Internet der Dienste. In E. Schweighofer, A. Geist, and I. Staufer, editors, Globale Sicherheit und proaktiver Staat – Die Rolle der Rechtsinformatik, volume 266 of, pages 643–650, Wien, O¨ sterreich, 2010. O¨ sterreichische Computer Gesellschaft (OCG).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    W3C. RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised), 10 February 2004.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    W3C. RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing, 14 October 2008.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    F. v. Westphalen, G. Thüsing, and F. Drettmann, editors. Vertragsrecht und AGBKlauselwerke. C. H. Beck, München, 27 edition, 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Berkeley Center for Law & TechnologyUniversity of California, Berkeley, School of LawBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.SAP Research KarlsruheVincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 1KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations