RE: [rights] Apologies + RLTC/XACML

["DuCharme, Bob (LNG)" <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>]

Thomas,

I haven't followed the XACML work enough to comment substantively on the
gist of what you're saying, although it all seems sensible enough. I can't,
however, let this go by without comment:

>The content rights-holders have all the time in 
>the world to wait, as they are making plenty of 
>revenues with yesterday's technology.

This shows a real lack of interest in the content holders' side of things,
which is a far from constructive attitude to have in the RLTC work. From
what I know of the current membership, without David Parrott, this leaves me
as the sole representative of the content side. As a member of the PRISM
group, I've been reporting back to them on the RLTC work, so I've also got
the technical interests of the big magazine groups in mind. I realize that
many standards efforts are driven by vendors hoping to rack up revenue from
being a part of the plumbing that eventually implements the standard, but
let's not lose sight of why the plumbing is needed in the first place.
Content holders have more and more content to track, and more ideas about
new business models that can result from an efficient, standardized approach
to dealing with rights-related metadata, and they're looking forward to
using the results of the RLTC. Belittling their interest in adopting new
technology will discourage their interest in doing so and will encourage the
perception that the standard is merely the result of greedy tool vendors.

Bob DuCharme
Consulting Software Engineer, LexisNexis
Data Architecture, Editorial Systems and Content Engineering