SolidLabResearch · woutslabbinck · Oct 15, 2025 · Oct 2, 2025 · Oct 3, 2025 · Oct 3, 2025
diff --git a/ODRL-Support.md b/ODRL-Support.md
@@ -127,6 +127,30 @@ When this is not the case, no satisfaction of this constraint can be obtained.
 To check for membership in an Asset Collection, the `odrl:partOf` property is used as stated in [ODRL IM §2.2.2](https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/#asset-partof).
 
 Example rule of Asset when Asset Collection is present:
+```notation3
+{
+   ?ruleReport a ?ruleReportType ;
+       report:rule ?permission ;
+       report:ruleRequest ?requestPermission ;
+       report:premiseReport ?targetReport .
+   ?ruleReportType list:in (report:PermissionReport report:RuleReport report:ProhibitionReport) .
+
+   ?targetReport a report:TargetReport .     
+
+   ?permission odrl:target ?assetCollection .
+
+   ?assetCollection a odrl:AssetCollection.
+
+   ?requestPermission odrl:target ?resourceInCollection .
+
+   ?resourceInCollection odrl:partOf ?assetCollection .
+}
+=> 
+{
+   ?targetReport report:satisfactionState report:Satisfied .
+} .
+```
+
 Note that the rule is a bit odd. This was also pointed out by [Joshua Corenjo](https://github.com/joshcornejo) in a [github issue](https://github.com/w3c/odrl/issues/64#issue-2572434743).
 
 
@@ -183,10 +207,10 @@ Columns of the table elaborated:
 | Greater than             | [`odrl:gt`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/gt)             | ✅         | ❌          | ✅         |
 | Greater than or equal to | [`odrl:gteq`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/gteq)         | ✅         | ❌          | ✅         |
 | Has part                 | [`odrl:hasPart`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/hasPart)   | ✅         | ❌          | ❌         |
-| Is a                     | [`odrl:isA`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/isA)           | ✅         | ❌          | ❌         |
+| Is a                     | [`odrl:isA`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/isA)           | ✅         | ❌          | ✅         |
 | Is all of                | [`odrl:isAllOf`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/isAllOf)   | ✅         | ❌          | ❌         |
-| Is any of                | [`odrl:isAnyOf`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/isAnyOf)   | ✅         | ❌          | ❌         |
-| Is none of               | [`odrl:isNoneOf`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/isNoneOf) | ✅         | ❌          | ❌         |
+| Is any of                | [`odrl:isAnyOf`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/isAnyOf)   | ✅         | ❌          | ✅         |
+| Is none of               | [`odrl:isNoneOf`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/isNoneOf) | ✅         | ❌          | ✅         |
 | Is part of               | [`odrl:isPartOf`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/isPartOf) | ✅         | ❌          | ❌         |
 | Less than                | [`odrl:lt`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/lt)             | ✅         | ❌          | ✅         |
 | Less than or equal to    | [`odrl:lteq`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/lteq)         | ✅         | ❌          | ✅         |
@@ -221,7 +245,7 @@ Columns of the table elaborated:
 | Payment Amount                    | [`odrl:payAmount`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/payAmount)                               | ❌         | ❌          | ❌         |
 | Asset Percentage                  | [`odrl:percentage`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/percentage)                             | ❌         | ❌          | ❌         |
 | Product Context                   | [`odrl:product`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/product)                                   | ❌         | ❌          | ❌         |
-| Purpose                           | [`odrl:purpose`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/purpose)                                   | ❌         | ❌          | ❌         |
+| Purpose                           | [`odrl:purpose`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/purpose)                                   | ❌         | ❌          | ✅         |
 | Recipient                         | [`odrl:recipient`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/recipient)                               | ❌         | ❌          | ❌         |
 | Relative Asset Position           | [`odrl:relativePosition`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/relativePosition)                 | ❌         | ❌          | ❌         |
 | Relative Asset Size               | [`odrl:relativeSize`](http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/relativeSize)                         | ❌         | ❌          | ❌         |

diff --git a/RELEASE_NOTES.md b/RELEASE_NOTES.md
@@ -1,5 +1,21 @@
 # ODRL Evaluator
 
+## v0.5.0
+
+### New features
+
+- Support for the purpose constraint
+  - The purpose is added as a constraint using the `https://w3id.org/force/sotw#context`. Note that this is an intermediary step between current inputs and the future inputs of the ODRL Evaluator: https://w3id.org/force/sotw
+- Support for following set based operators
+  - `odrl:isAnyOf`
+  - `odrl:isA`
+  - `odrl:isNoneOf`
+
+### Fixes
+
+- Fix to the way Party and Asset collections are handled
+  - addressed in the rules (`src/rules/report.n3`) and the test suite (`test/integration/ODRL-Test-Suite.test.ts`)
+
 ## v0.4.0
 
 ### New features

diff --git a/TODO.md b/TODO.md
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# TODO list
+
+## Creating new test cases
+
+- [x] checking whether evaluation also work when having xsd:date instead of xsd:dateTime
+  - [x] remove comments in `constraint.n3`
+  - [ ] Make actual test case for (ODRL-test-suite)
+- [ ] Test cases for zero or one purpose
+  - Ensure no DANGLING context is possible -> see rules related to purpose in `constraint.n3`
+    - make a test case for that?
+```n3
+?requestPermission sotw:context ?requestContextConstraint .
+?requestContextConstraint odrl:leftOperand odrl:purpose . 
+```
+
+MUST become
+
+```n3
+?requestPermission a sotw:EvaluationRequest. 
+?requestPermission sotw:context ?requestContextConstraint .
+?requestContextConstraint odrl:leftOperand odrl:purpose . 
+```
+
+Both created at: `test/ODRL-newTestCases.test.ts`
+
+## Other
+
+- [x] Do a github release for version 0.4
+- [ ] fix [issue 3](https://github.com/SolidLabResearch/ODRL-Evaluator/issues/3) -> strange behaviour in action reports for compact rules
+  - [ ] perhaps also test whether I can solve compact policies as well as that is just derivation
+- [x] fix [issue 8](https://github.com/SolidLabResearch/ODRL-Evaluator/issues/8) -> collection
+- [x] implement `odrl:anyOf`
+- [x] implement `odrl:isNoneOf`
+- [x] implement `odrl:anyOf`
+- [x] checkout other operators
+  - Needs discussion
+    - `odrl:isAllOf`: With how we evaluate right now, `odrlisAllOf` does not make a lot of sense
+    - `odrl:isPartOf`: what does containment mean? for Target and Party collections, that is clear (`odrl:partOf`)
+    - `odrl:hasPart`: what does containment mean? for Target and Party collections, that is clear (`odrl:partOf`)
+    - [x] `odrl:isA`: What does *is an instance* mean for right operands?
+      - https://besteves4.github.io/odrl-access-control-profile/oac.html#x5-1-preference-policy
+  - Needs implementation and test cases
+- [x] Make a release checklist template
+- [x] start drafting roadmap for proper upgrade to new sotw and evaluation request
+  - preferably this release?
+
+### To be discussed with Beatriz
+
+- [ ] update policies in https://github.com/besteves4/pacsoi-policies
+  - had to explicitly add `odrl:Permission` to the permission of the policies -> perhaps add code to infer this (making it future proof)
+  - Recommend using proper identifiers everywhere due the the policy reports
+    - Atomizer of Ruben D fails when blank nodes are used for odrl Rules. As a result, so does my `Atomizer` class.
+
+### Addressed
+- Does it make sense to request access for multiple purposes?
+  - A: Right now, it does not. You want to be very specific when you ask for data. You don't want the ambiguity
+- For now, `odrl:hasPart` does not make sense:
+  - The current sotw and evaluation request assumes a cardinality of one value to materialize for a left operand. Thus far, no examples have been found where a left operand contains multiple properties.
+    - this was the assumption for the state of the world anyway, because we want a deterministic way to get **one** value (though programmable) for the Left Operand
+- `odrl:isAllOf`: A set-based operator indicating that a given value is all of the right operand of the Constraint.
+  - It does not make sense: we have not found a value that could do that
+    - NOTE: perhaps it would be possible if the meaning of the constraint is
+      - A set-based operator indicating that a given value is **AN INSTANCE OF** all of the right operand of the Constraint.
+- `odrl:isPartOf`: There is no generic way to have Collections. Perhaps this operator could be useful in profiles.
+  - There is notion of collections with parties and assets, though this is handled already through the party and asset properties of a rule.
diff --git a/package.json b/package.json
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "odrl-evaluator",
-  "version": "0.4.0",
+  "version": "0.5.0",
   "description": "An open implementation of an ODRL Evaluator that evaluates ODRL policies by generating Compliance Reports",
   "main": "./dist/index.js",
   "types": "./dist/index.d.ts",