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

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.

Institutional policies stay in natural language while the systems that check compliance demand machine-readable constraints. Bridging that gap is still done by hand. PolicyKG closes the loop. It is an LLM pipeline that reads a policy PDF, classifies each sentence as an obligation, permission, or prohibition, lifts the label into first-order deontic logic, and emits SHACL constraints. Four stages run on a LangGraph state machine with per-stage validators. The piece that matters most is the Corpus Adapter: a YAML vocabulary registry that grounds LLM predicates in a target ontology. Retargeting to a new domain means swapping the registry, not retraining a model. On the Asian Institute of Technology Policies and Procedures corpus (1,663 sentences, 443 rules), PolicyKG reaches 86.9% deontic classification accuracy (Cohen's kappa = .709). Three annotators independently re-label a 50-item sample and agree at Fleiss' kappa = .844. SHACL shape correctness on a 69-shape subset is F1 = .866. The FOL path handles 79.2% of rules; the rest go through a direct NL-to-SHACL fallback. We audited every one of the 443 rules for second- or higher-order constructs. An automated regex checklist flagged none, and a first-author pass on the 92 FOL-fallback cases confirmed the same. The exact upper 95% Clopper-Pearson bound on the true HOL rate is 0.67%. This is an audit finding for one corpus, not a proof of FOL sufficiency for institutional policy. Swapping the AIT registry for a GDPR registry raises exact property alignment from 1/15 to 11/15 (Fisher's exact p < .001; Cohen's h = 1.53). On the LexDeMod lease-contract benchmark (N = 200), Macro F1 drops to .370 because lease English uses "shall be entitled" for permission -- exactly the vocabulary mismatch registry swap is meant to fix. Repeated runs produce hash-identical SHACL outputs.

Technical-standard compliance reasoning may involve incomplete evidence, inconsistent observations, exceptions, and derived normative outputs. This paper presents \textsc{Monir}, a four-valued normative intermediate representation for ASP-oriented compliance workflows. \textsc{Monir} separates factual support from normative outputs: facts are represented by positive and negative support bits, while deontic labels are rule-generated output constructors interpreted by aggregation policies. Its core semantics is a staged transition system over support configurations. We define the language, rule-state interface, diagnostics, and policy-parametric reporting; characterize admissible staged evaluation by a dependency graph; prove deterministic polynomial-time evaluation for fixed evidence; and give NP/coNP upper bounds, with matching hardness for representative completion-based verdict queries.