RE: [rights-requirements] Some proposed topics for Aug. 28

[Bob Glushko <glushko@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU>]

At 10:22 AM 8/28/2002 -0400, Gandee, Brad wrote:
> I
> would have to agree with Bob.  This rights language architecture
> will be used well beyond the domains that are concerned with Fair Use and
> certainly beyond specific interpretations of Fair Use.  I, for one,
> do not see any Fair Use of my personal health records.  Therefore I
> would not want anyone to "claim right" access to my record
> which indicates my genetic predisposition to
> procrastination

"Fair use" isn't such a blunt instrument.  It applies to
copyrighted materials, not to content types like health records.  I
don't think anyone has proposed that a "claim right" applies in
all contexts. 

But just the same, a "revoke right" can't be applied in all
contexts either.   While it is clear that in a context like
document access control within a corporation the rights granting
authority could decide to change the rights granted to some individual,
"revoke" simply doesn't apply to copyright
contexts.   "Revoking" fair use isn't a sensible
expression.

> .
>  
> But seriously, Bob has
> made a point that is crucial to this conversation.  We do not know
> what rights people will want to elaborate in the future.  We don't
> know all of the rights "(or
> principals or resources or conditions, for that matter)"
> people want to describe
> today.  They vary by domain.  Experts in those domains should
> develop the domain specific extensions for their applications.  But
> by building their extensions on top of this architecture they allow
> application and systems developers to build solutions that can be
> leveraged across multiple domains. 


>  
> Hari provided one way to
> achieve this idea of claiming rights in his email of yesterday afternoon
> subject: "[rights-requirements] FW: Self issuance of
> rights".  This is just one way XrML could be used to
> "express" an interpretation of Fair Use. We should not be
> hardwiring the language to express this or any other set
> rights.


so the key question is -- is a language verb like "claim" any
different from one like "revoke" -- I think not. Both are
appropriate in particular domains and inappropriate in
others.    They are just verbs that both need to be in the
language.  Are you proposing that we take out "revoke"
because it isn't appropriate in all contexts?

bob