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.

Axis Decomposition for ODRL: Resolving Dimensional Ambiguity in Policy Constraints through Interval Semantics

Every ODRL 2.2 constraint compares a single scalar value: (leftOperand, operator, rightOperand). Five of ODRL's left operands, however, denote multi-dimensional quantities--image dimensions, canvas positions, geographic coordinates--whose specification text explicitly references multiple axes. For these operands, a single scalar constraint admits one interpretation per axis, making policy evaluation non-deterministic. We classify ODRL's left operands by value-domain structure (scalar, dimensional, concept-valued), grounded in the ODRL 2.2 specification text, and show that dimensional ambiguity is intrinsic to the constraint syntax. We present an axis-decomposition framework that refines each dimensional operand into axis-specific scalar operands and prove four properties: deterministic interpretation, AABB completeness, projection soundness, and conservative extension. Conflict detection operates in two layers: per-axis verdicts are always decidable; box-level verdicts compose through Strong Kleene conjunction into a three-valued logic (Conflict, Compatible, Unknown). For ODRL's disjunctive (odrl:or) and exclusive-or (odrl:xone) logical constraints, where per-axis decomposition does not apply, the framework encodes coupled multi-axis conjectures directly. We instantiate the framework as the ODRL Spatial Axis Profile--15 axis-specific left operands for the five affected base terms--and evaluate it on 117 benchmark problems spanning nine categories across both TPTP FOF (Vampire) and SMT-LIB (Z3) encodings, achieving full concordance between provers. Benchmark scenarios are inspired by constraints arising in cultural heritage dataspaces such as Datenraum Kultur. All meta-theorems are mechanically verified in Isabelle/HOL.

Denotational Semantics for ODRL: Knowledge-Based Constraint Conflict Detection

ODRL's six set-based operators -- isA, isPartOf, hasPart, isAnyOf, isAllOf, isNoneOf -- depend on external domain knowledge that the W3C specification leaves unspecified. Without it, every cross-dataspace policy comparison defaults to Unknown. We present a denotational semantics that maps each ODRL constraint to the set of knowledge-base concepts satisfying it. Conflict detection reduces to denotation intersection under a three-valued verdict -- Conflict, Compatible, or Unknown -- that is sound under incomplete knowledge. The framework covers all three ODRL composition modes (and, or, xone) and all three semantic domains arising in practice: taxonomic (class subsumption), mereological (part-whole containment), and nominal (identity). For cross-dataspace interoperability, we define order-preserving alignments between knowledge bases and prove two guarantees: conflicts are preserved across different KB standards, and unmapped concepts degrade gracefully to Unknown -- never to false conflicts. A runtime soundness theorem ensures that design-time verdicts hold for all execution contexts. The encoding stays within the decidable EPR fragment of first-order logic. We validate it with 154 benchmarks across six knowledge base families (GeoNames, ISO 3166, W3C DPV, a GDPR-derived taxonomy, BCP 47, and ISO 639-3) and four structural KBs targeting adversarial edge cases. Both the Vampire theorem prover and the Z3 SMT solver agree on all 154 verdicts. A key finding is that exclusive composition (xone) requires strictly stronger KB axioms than conjunction or disjunction: open-world semantics blocks exclusivity even when positive evidence appears to satisfy exactly one branch.

Semantic Data Management in Data Lakes

In recent years, data lakes emerged as away to manage large amounts of heterogeneous data for modern data analytics. One way to prevent data lakes from turning into inoperable data swamps is semantic data management. Some approaches propose the linkage of metadata to knowledge graphs based on the Linked Data principles to provide more meaning and semantics to the data in the lake. Such a semantic layer may be utilized not only for data management but also to tackle the problem of data integration from heterogeneous sources, in order to make data access more expressive and interoperable. In this survey, we review recent approaches with a specific focus on the application within data lake systems and scalability to Big Data. We classify the approaches into (i) basic semantic data management, (ii) semantic modeling approaches for enriching metadata in data lakes, and (iii) methods for ontologybased data access. In each category, we cover the main techniques and their background, and compare latest research. Finally, we point out challenges for future work in this research area, which needs a closer integration of Big Data and Semantic Web technologies.