Re: [rights-requirements] RE: [Fwd: Core vs. Non-Core]

[Bob Glushko <glushko@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU>]

At 03:28 PM 8/27/2002 -0400, Reddy, Hari wrote:

> From
> Patrick: 
> It appears to me (and this may be obvious to everyone
> else)  that Hari's 
> parsing of the requirements into core vs. domain
> reflect an a priori 
> acceptance of XrML 2.1 as it stands now. Is that a
> correct reading? 
>
> Hari: 
> The charter states
> (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/#charter):
> 2. Use XrML as the basis in defining the industry
> standard rights language in order to maximize continuity with ongoing
> standards efforts.


At the initial meeting of the TC in May, we discussed this explicitly and
voted to change "THE" in the charter document to "A"
to reflect the fact that we expected other submissions to the
requirements process.  I've cut and pasted from the meeting
minutes:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/rltc/minutes/RLTC%20Minutes%2020020521.doc


Content Guard submitted XrML 2.1 to serves as a starting
point for the work of the TC.

Vote was held to accept the submission from ContentGuard:
11 Yeas
1 Abstention
2 Phone votes unknown

This may seem like a trivial distinction, especially to the
folks from Content Guard, but to me it was fundamental.  Many of us
would probably not have joined the TC if we were from the outset
endorsing every part of the XrML specification as it stood on May 21 by
saying that it was THE BASIS.  We are here because we view it as A
BASIS -- an important part of the requirements for a new OASIS rights
expression language, but the reason we are having a requirements process
is to ensure that we collect a broader set of inputs.  We are doing
that now and we will build a better specification because of the
contributions from Patrick Durusau's organization, the IEEE, the
Samuelson Clinic at Berkeley, the EFF and so on.   If we accept
unquestionably every aspect of the XrML specification, then it is
impossible to say that this effort will lead to an OPEN
standard.

Let's just let the requirements process continue. We are making
progress.  Let's not try to assume its outcome in advance. 

-bob glushko