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

Daham Mustafa, Diego Collarana, Yixin Peng, Rafiqul Haque, Christoph Lange-Bever, Christoph Quix, Stephan Decker · Feb 23, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. If the signals below are thin, treat it as background context and compare it against the stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Paper metadata checked

Feb 24, 2026, 7:25 PM

Stale

Protocol signals checked

Feb 24, 2026, 7:25 PM

Stale

Signal strength

Low

Model confidence 0.15

Abstract

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.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Reliably Extract

Each protocol field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.