[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [rights-requirements] FW: Rights Requirements Submission
I'm told that this didn't make it through the first time... ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Erickson" <john_erickson@hplb.hpl.hp.com> To: "Reddy, Hari" <Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM>; "Hal Lockhart" <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>; <pdurusau@emory.edu> Cc: "Rights-Requirements (E-mail)" <rights-requirements@lists.oasis-open.org>; <robin@isogen.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [rights-requirements] FW: Rights Requirements Submission > As I pointed out at the W3C workshop, we should assume a context or general DRM > reference model that would define open interfaces between three architectural > levels of abstraction: rights expression languages, rights messaging protocols > and mechanisms for policy enforcement and compliance. > > Within that context, rights expression languages should provide the basis for > expressing rights information and policies, and as such are useful for a variety > of rights messaging applications including > > * Rights information discovery > * Simple policy expression > * Rights negotiation and trading --- offer discovery, presentation and > acceptance (AKA making a rights request) > * The expression of rights agreements and electronic contracts (e-Contracts) > > Minimally, a rights language must provide the vocabulary and syntax for the > declarative expression of rights and rights restrictions. In order to guarantee > interoperability and evolvability, we would also expect a rights language to be > inherently extensible: it must provide an open-ended way to express rights not > anticipated by the language "core." Such extensions might include new operations > on content or new contextual constraints... > > Clearly, rights languages should not be thought of as e-Contract languages. > First, this is obvious because the domain of a rights language should also > include the vocabulary for expressing offers and requests. Secondly, the rights > specifications contained within rights packages are not e-Contracts! It is clear > that one possible use of a rights language is to express the parties, terms, > rights and obligations typically enumerated in e-Contracts. [c.f. FIRM] However, > e-Contracts go beyond the immediate scope of rights languages (and, arguable, > DRM in general) since they require complex, dynamic behavior, not just > declarative expression of state. > > Note: The rights specification created by a rights expression language and > contained within in a license package can be thought of as a manifestation of an > e-Contract, held and maintained by some license server and generated based upon > a specific context of use. Such e-Contracts are reifications of usage licenses. > > On the issue of representing principles of copyright law (e.g. fair use), I > believe that this *does* belong in the domain of the rights language. As I > suggested in last week's call, this is part of the context of the rights *claim" > that the user is making when they make a so-called "rights request," and this is > precisely at the semantic level of the rights expression language. > > It also impacts on the so-called "system," because we also require an extensible > rights messaging protocol to enable this level of expressiveness... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Reddy, Hari" <Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM> > To: "Hal Lockhart" <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>; <pdurusau@emory.edu> > Cc: "Rights-Requirements (E-mail)" <rights-requirements@lists.oasis-open.org>; > <robin@isogen.com> > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:23 PM > Subject: RE: [rights-requirements] FW: Rights Requirements Submission > > > > Hi Hal: > > I believe the operative phrase is "should be able to express". As you > > articulate below, there is a delineation between a rights language and the > > system that uses the rights language. While the merits of a rights language > > pertain to its expressiveness it is ultimately the decision of the system to > > use those expressions. It might be helpful for people to review the > > Requirements SC's work in progress which may illustrate this a little more ( > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200207/msg00019.htm > > l > > <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200207/msg00019.ht > > ml> ). > > > > Patrick, I, too, share Hal's question... > > > > Regards, > > Hari > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hal Lockhart [mailto:hal.lockhart@entegrity.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:00 PM > > To: 'pdurusau@emory.edu' > > Cc: Rights-Requirements (E-mail); 'robin@isogen.com' > > Subject: RE: [rights-requirements] FW: Rights Requirements Submission > > > > > > Patrick, > > > > I am pleased to see this submission. There have been (negative) comments on > > the lack of repesentation from the academic community on this TC. > > > > With regard to your specific requirements, I would like to act as a devil's > > advocate for the moment. > > > > You state that the rights language should be able to express the doctrines > > of Fair Use and First Sale. However, it is my understanding (as a > > non-lawyer) that these doctrines are currently the law of the land and apply > > to ALL copyrighted works. Therefore I assume any digital rights management > > system would be aware of the need to honor these doctrines. So, it is > > unclear to me why a digital rights language would need to contain some > > element that would have to be applied to EACH AND EVERY digital work. > > > > Can you clarify the intention here? > > > > Hal > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Reddy, Hari [mailto:Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 11:40 AM > > To: Rights-Requirements (E-mail) > > Subject: [rights-requirements] FW: Rights Requirements Submission > > > > > > > > Hello All: > > We received this from Patrick this morning. Patrick, on behalf of the RLTC, > > I thank you for your submission and look forward to working with you. > > > > Regards, > > Hari > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patrick Durusau [ mailto:pdurusau@emory.edu > > <mailto:pdurusau@emory.edu> ] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 5:01 AM > > To: Bob.glushko@commerceone.com; hari.reddy@contentguard.com; > > robin@isogen.com > > Subject: Rights Requirements Submission > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > I have attached a brief rights requirement document on behalf of the > > Society of Biblical Literature. Please accept it for consideration by > > the Rights SC and ultimately as part of the process of the Rights > > Language TC at OASIS. > > > > By separate post I am making application to Hari Reddy for the SBL to > > become a member of the Rights Language TC. > > > > Please acknowledge delivery of this post with its attachment. (The email > > provider I use while traveling is sometime unrealiable and does not > > always indicate delivery failures. Thanks.) > > > > (It was not entirely clear from the website who was the contact for the > > submission so I am writing to the co-chairs and Robin Cover, who > > appeared in the email archives as a collecting point for requirements.) > > > > Patrick > > > > -- > > Patrick Durusau > > Director of Research and Development > > Society of Biblical Literature > > pdurusau@emory.edu > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC