cs.AIMar 13, 2026

ODRL Policy Comparison Through Normalisation

Authors: Jaime Osvaldo Salas, Paolo Pareti, George Konstantinidis

Organizations: University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

The ODRL language has become the standard for representing policies and regulations for digital rights. However its complexity is a barrier to its usage, which has caused many related theoretical and practical works to focus on different, and not interoperable, fragments of ODRL. Moreover, semantically equivalent policies can be expressed in numerous different ways, which makes comparing them and processing them harder. Building on top of a recently defined semantics, we tackle these problems by proposing an approach that involves a parametrised normalisation of ODRL policies into its minimal components which reformulates policies with permissions and prohibitions into policies with permissions exclusively, and simplifies complex logic constraints into simple ones. We provide algorithms to compute a normal form for ODRL policies and simplifying numerical and symbolic constraints. We prove that these algorithms preserve the semantics of policies, and analyse the size complexity of the result, which is exponential on the number of attributes and linear on the number of unique values for these attributes. We show how this makes complex policies representable in more basic fragments of ODRL, and how it reduces the problem of policy comparison to the simpler problem of checking if two rules are identical.

Figures & tables

ConstraintReformulationConstraintReformulation
¬(λ=ρ)\neg(\lambda=\rho)(λ<ρ)∨(λ>ρ)(\lambda<\rho)\vee(\lambda>\rho)¬(λ=ρ)∗\neg(\lambda=\rho)^{*}(λ≠ρ)(\lambda\neq\rho)
¬(λ≥ρ)\neg(\lambda\geq\rho)(λ<ρ)(\lambda<\rho)(λ≠ρ)(\lambda\neq\rho)(λ<ρ)∨(λ>ρ)(\lambda<\rho)\vee(\lambda>\rho)
¬(λ<ρ)\neg(\lambda<\rho)(λ>ρ)∨(λ=ρ)(\lambda>\rho)\vee(\lambda=\rho)¬(λ≤ρ)\neg(\lambda\leq\rho)(λ>ρ)(\lambda>\rho)
(λ≤ρ)(\lambda\leq\rho)(λ<ρ)∨(λ=ρ)(\lambda<\rho)\vee(\lambda=\rho)¬(λ>ρ)\neg(\lambda>\rho)(λ<ρ)∨(λ=ρ)(\lambda<\rho)\vee(\lambda=\rho)
¬(λ≠ρ)†\neg(\lambda\neq\rho)^{\dagger}(λ=ρ)(\lambda=\rho)(λ≥ρ)(\lambda\geq\rho)(λ>ρ)∨(λ=ρ)(\lambda>\rho)\vee(\lambda=\rho)
Table 1: Constraint reformulations for numeric constraints, (*) applies also to entity constraints. ( †\dagger ) applies only to entity constraints.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 17, 2026

A Formally Grounded ODRL Evaluator: Implementation and Comparison

The ODRL policy language is emerging as the de-facto standard for policy modelling data access and usage preferences, AI governance policies and data workflows in European dataspaces. The current standard has no mathematical formal semantics to describe how a system should implement policy evaluation. This has resulted in a variety of systems and tools that implement their own interpretation of the language, which limits interoperability and cannot guarantee consistent results. Based on an existing semantic model of ODRL, we formalise the problems of ODRL evaluation for the access control and monitoring scenarios, in both static and streaming settings, and we provide a novel, efficient algorithm and implementation. We present the first ODRL Evaluator with transparent formal semantics and supporting all rule types. We experimentally measure its performance, analysing different scalability dimensions related to policy complexity and size of the data on which a policy is evaluated. We compare our system with the state-of-the-art by providing a comparative review of existing ODRL evaluators, which highlights the differences in supported ODRL features and evaluation modes.

Jaime Osvaldo Salas, Paolo Pareti, Adeel Aslam +2

University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

Policy EvaluationAccess Control
AskPDF
Feb 23, 2026

Axis-Aligned Semantics for ODRL: Resolving Dimensional Ambiguity in Policy Constraints

The Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) represents policy constraints as triples of a left operand, an operator, and a value. Several spatial operands, however, range over multi-axis domains such as width, height, and depth, while the constraint syntax provides no explicit axis identity. As a result, policy engines cannot determine whether multiple constraints apply to the same axis or different ones, making conflict detection unsound or incomplete. We resolve this ambiguity by axis decomposition, replacing multi-axis operands with axis-specific scalar operands over totally ordered domains. Each constraint then denotes an interval per axis and each policy an axis-aligned box, reducing conflict detection to box comparison. We define a three-valued semantics (Conflict, Compatible, Unknown), prove the decomposition sound and backward compatible with ODRL, instantiate it as ODRL Axis-Aligned Profile (OAAP), and validate it on a benchmark of 256 ODRL policy problems, each expressed in Turtle and compiled to first-order (TPTP) and SMT-LIB form, using Vampire, E, Z3, and cvc5.

Daham Mustafa, Diego Collarana, Sabrina Kirrane +5

RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany · Fraunhofer FIT, Sankt Augustin, Germany · Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU), Vienna, Austria +1

Policy EvaluationAccess Control
AskPDF
Jun 23, 2026

What Does ODRL Mean? A Cross-Level Ontological Grounding of Permissions, Prohibitions, and Duties in UFO-L

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.

Daham M. Mustafa, Christoph Lange, Giancarlo Guizzardi +3

Fraunhofer FIT, Sankt Augustin, Germany · RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany · University of Twente, The Netherlands +1

Deontic LogicLegal Reasoning
AskPDF