RE: [rights] TIME OUT, PLEASE

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

>> ...I believe that all of the problems can be boiled
>> down to this: Some of the members of the TC joined in
>> order to work on XrML, and others joined to work on what
>> they hoped would be an RF rights language....

>JSE: No, it isn't that simple. RF is an issue, critical for some, but
arguably
>even *more* critical is ensuring that the requirements of a broad, diverse
>constiuency are solicited, collected and considered, and that the best
possible
>rights expression language be created through an open authoring process.

I strongly agree with John. RF/RAND issues are one aspect of the current
RLTC tension, but they're not the root of the problem. Those who joined the
TC's founders were told that a strategy and schedule were already in place,
and that this strategy was somehow in the charter (I still don't see where,
myself), and that it was therefore not their place to question it. They've
been accused, and I quote, of "dreaming" and "pretending" otherwise in the
last general meeting. Their frustration is understandable.

Unlike some, I've carefully avoided using the phrase "rubber-stamp," which
to me implies turning XrML 2.1 into an OASIS standard. I still believe that
the original sponsors of the RLTC are open to changes to XrML on its way to
becoming an OASIS standard, and some ContentGuard representatives have been
very helpful in helping me determine changes that would fit my own company's
use cases. Still, I want to submit something more akin to an XrML 3.0 to the
OASIS body as a standard to vote on, not an XrML 2.2. I don't consider
throwing an XrML 2.2 requirements list over the wall to be a good start.
John has explained better than I can the steps that will be necessary to get
to a major upgrade of XrML that we can all be proud to call an OASIS rights
expression language.

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