Liaison with other standards groups (II)

[David Parrott <David.Parrott@reuters.com>]

I omitted to include the following notes in my previous email.
The notes describe the status of requirements gathering
exercises:


MPEG-21 issued the following in March 2001:

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 N4044: Reissue of the Call for
Requirements for a Rights Data Dictionary and a Rights
Expression Language.
http://www.cselt.it/mpeg/cfp/call_for_requirements(rights_language).htm

The deadline for responses is *tomorrow* (COB 20010601).
There is an ad hoc meeting of MPEG-21 in London on 7-8 June
to discuss the responses.  MPEG is keen to stress that
requirements gathering is an ongoing process.  Reuters is
responding to the call.


Open eBook Forum

The OeBF Requirements Working Group has more-or-less
finished putting in place online tools for gathering requirements
from numerous sources.  A process has been identified for
turning raw requirements into normalised requirements based
on common ontological terms.  Potential sources for requirements
have been identified and the process is getting underway for
inviting contributions.


W3C

I have now heard back from Rigo Wenig at the W3C who confirms
that no decision has yet been taken regarding the W3C's involvement
or otherwise with DRM activities.  He will be following up with the
appropriate committee.


In summary, most standards organisations working in DRM and
related spaces are at the requirements gathering stage.  At the
very least, I suggest that an exchange of requirements would help
to determine relative positions of the various bodies and serve to
reduce replicated effort.


/Dave.

_ ______________________________________________________________
Dr David J. Parrott, Chartered Engineer. Chief Technology Office
     Reuters Limited, 85 Fleet Street, London EC4P 4AJ, UK.
   Direct Line: +44 (0)20 7542 9830, Fax: +44 (0)20 7542 8314
       Email: David.Parrott@reuters.com, dparrott@acm.org


-----------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.