[rights] OASIS and MPEG roles

[Robin Cover <robin@isogen.com>]

In this note I am attempting to clarify my understanding
of some terminology as well as an understanding of the
role(s) played by OASIS and MPEG in defining the
(?) multi-part XrML specification.

1. My initial question arose in connection with published
statements about XrML's "Content Extension"

It was published in XrML 2.0 as a separate part
"eXtensible rights Markup Language (XrML) 2.0
Specification Part IV: Content Extension Schema,
20 November 2001 in files 'xrml2cx.xsd' (schema),
'xrml2part4.pdf' (prose doc)

'CX' was characterized as "an extension to XrML 2.0 that
describes rights, conditions, and metadata for digital
works, allowing trusted systems to exchange digital
works and interoperate."  Among the rights were:

AccessFolderInfo, Backup, Copy, Delete, Edit, Embed,
Execute, Export, Extract, Install, Loan, ManageFolder,
Play, Print, Read, Restore, Transfer, Uninstall,
Verify, and Write


2. Some docmentation on the XrML website and in the RLTC
archives clarifies that indeed, the 'Content Extension' of v2.0
was dropped (omitted) in the XrML 2.1 specification, e.g.,

a) "XrML 2.1 Technical Overview"

"the XrML Content Extension (currently being developed by
a separate standards organization/activity) defines conditions
appropriate to using digital works (for instance, watermark,
destination, and renderer).

"The XrML Content Extension was part of the XrML 2.0 specification;
In XrML 2.1, the Content Extension is no longer part of the
specification, but a separate standards activity (in this case the
MPEG organization) will be responsible for developing the
Content Extension for XrML"

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200205/msg00029.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200205/bin00000.bin
http://xml.coverpages.org/XrMLTechnicalOverview21-DRAFT.pdf

b) "XrML Version Information"

"Working drafts of changes to the XrML version 2.0 Core
and SX extension will be found on the OASIS Rights
Committee web site. Working drafts for changes to XrML
version 2.0 content extensions can be found on the
MPEG Web Site.

ContentGuard has recommend to the standards organizations
that they agree on a process to maintain a single core
and single standard extension set, and thereby improve
interoperability and reduce redundancy. It is our
expectation that this will be in place before any
standards organizations release a final specification
based on XrML."

http://www.xrml.org/VersionInfo.asp

3. The reference to MPEG in "b" above suggests that the XrML
"content extension(s)" of XrML 2.0 are to be developed
by MPEG, and indeed, other presentations introduce the
labels "MX" and "MPEG Extension" and "MPEG Extension Schema"

See Brad Gandee 'ContentGuard XrML Evangelist'

http://www.eduworks.com/geoff/Gandee-XrML.ppt
http://www.thecommonplace.net/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=6&threadid=25

with the note that "Content Extension (CX) -- which has
now become the MPEG Extension (MX)..."

4. One guess, therefore, was that the document recently
published by ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 with the text of
ISO/IEC CD 21000-5 [REL] (as ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11/N4942)
is, in fact, the mystery XrML 'Content Extension'.  Two of
the editors are familiar to me: Information Technology --
Multimedia Framework -- Part 5: Rights Expression Language.
Committee Draft. Edited by Thomas DeMartini (ContentGuard,
US), Xin Wang (ContentGuard, US), and Barney Wragg (UMG, UK).
According to Brad's note, this CD is out for National Body
comments which are due 10-27-02.

This draft includes a lot of XrML core material as well as
definition for some of the rights defined in XrML 2.0
'CX Content Extension' -- but not for all of them, by
any means. [e.g., Read, Write, Execute, Adapt, Copy,
Extract, Embed, Modify, Enlarge, Edit, Transfer/Move,
Play, Print, Enable, Disable, Install, Uninstall, Delete]

A message from Thomas DeMartini (2002-09-10) seems to confirm
that the new XrML 'Content Extension' (MX) is indeed embodied in
MPEG-21 Part 5 CD.

http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2002-08-26-b.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200208/msg00028.html
http://mpeg.telecomitalialab.com/working_documents/mpeg-21/rel/REL_cd.zip


5. Oddly, however, there is no indication in the MPEG-21 overview
that MPEG-21 Part 5 is the XrML "Content Extension."
http://mpeg.telecomitalialab.com/standards/mpeg-21/mpeg-21.htm

Similarly, the MPEG liaison document, which mentions the
MPEG-21 Part 5 (REL) CD, does not indicate awareness of
the fact that Part 5 is being identified as the
"XrML Content Extension".  It merely says: 

"Given that our two organizations are pursuing very similar
work, we would like to inform the OASIS RLTC that MPEG has
produced a Committee Draft (CD) of the MPEG-21 REL
(please find this document attached).  
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200208/doc00001.doc


6. Finally,  Pete Schirling calls MPEG-21 Part 5 a
"multimedia extension" - not (the) XrML Content Extension

"...The OASIS TC is charged with producing the 'core'
rights expression language and MPEG is charged with
developing the multimedia extension to the core..."

"MPEG has a complete multimedia extension together
and has frozen the spec as of July 2002 and issued
its 1st ballot (CD) which will be reviewed at the
December MPEG meeting. At that time the 2nd (FCD)
ballot will be issued..."

This raises a question as to whether the MPEG REL is
by design competent for non-multimedia application
domains.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200209/msg00010.html


== And so...

I would like to know from relevant authorities if the above
lab book of investigation (sorry!) leaves out something vital or
misunderstands anything in concluding that:

OASIS RLTC is defining the XrML "Core"
OASIS RLTC is defining the XrML "Standard Extension" (SX)
MPEG-21 is defining the XrML "Content Extension" (MX)
  in MPEG-21 Part 5, now dependent upon its own internal core
MPEG-21 is defining the XrML Data Dictionary (??)
  in MPEG-21 Part 6
MPEG-21 is defining the XrML [... ??? ] anything else?

And also:

a) is the XrML "Content Extension" (MX) an example of a
   "domain" extension in RLTC parlance?
b) what bodies (as envisioned) will produce other domain
   extensions not named above?
c) were any of the omissions of particular rights in
   ISO/IEC CD 21000-5 (relative to XrML 2.0 'CX') due to
   the fact that MPEG is specifically a multimedia domain ?
d) in what sense is ISO/IEC CD 21000-5 (REL) to be
   awarded privilege [above (other?) domain extensions]
   in the (??) "XrML Standard"

Thanks!

-----------------------------------------------------
Robin Cover
XML Cover Pages
WWW: http://xml.coverpages.org
Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletter.html