OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

rights-requirements message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [rights-requirements] 02-12-03 Req Sc darft meeting minutes

Hello All:

Here are the minutes from the 02-12-03 meeting. Please send me any changes.








Requirements SC Meeting

Date: February 12, 2003

Time: 11:00 – 12:00 PM EDT



Roll Call

Hari Reddy, ContentGuard

Anne Anderson, Sun Microsystems

Aaron Burstein, Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic

Thomas DeMartini, ContentGuard

Cory Doctorow, Individual

Brad Gandee, ContentGuard

Brian LaMacchia, Microsoft

M. Paramasivam, Micorsoft

Harry Piccariello, ContentGuard

Lisa Rein, Individual

TJ Pannu, ContentGuard



1. Review open action items.

2. Discussion on meeting minutes format

3. Review Examples submitted by the Law Clinic

     1. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-examples/200211/msg00004.html

     2. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200301/msg00006.html

     with follow up by Brian:















Lisa Rein

D: Provide reference to the comment that “most rights expression languages to date have rights and permissions” to the email list

R: Lisa stated that she was incorrect. Lisa will provide list with information by 10-23-02.



Closed/ 10-16-02

Lisa Rein

D: Provide list of “10 words” to discuss on email.

R: Will add to the list provided by Deirdre and Aaron





Thomas DeMartini

D: Provide the two clarifying questions resulting from the email analysis by Thomas and Patrick

R: email sent to SC list on 10-02-02





Deirdre Mulligan

D: Provide a list of terms to be defined on email

R: Sent to list on 10-16…not needed in light of Action 8.



Closed/ 10-02-02

Peter Schirling

D: Post comment on parallel systems to the email list

R: John Erickson responded on email list.





Aaron Burstein

D: Provide information on schedule to the email list.

R: Provided a synopsis of the OASIS TC Process. There was misunderstanding by the group…several members were expecting a suggested schedule which was not Aaron’s understanding.



Moved to Action 11


Deirdre Mulligan

D: Provide a list of issues regarding a “general expression language” referencing the Sameulson submission to the email list

R: Aaron sent response to the list on 10-11-02…SC would like more information…Moved to Action 11






D: Provide an Introduction to the Requirements Document to clarify the scope and the terminology used in the Requirements Document.

R: Parama sent Draft Introduction to the SC list on 10-15-02





John Erickson

D: Provide input to Action 8 with respect to permissions.

R: John made the addition and sent it to the list on 10-17-02





Hari Reddy

D: Update the Requirements Document upon receiving final input from Action 8 and 9.

R: Done…updated as Requirements Rev 14.




Deirdre Mulligan and Brian LaMacchia

D: Clarify expressions not mathematically expressible in the current language

R: Will meet on 10-24 or 10-25 and report back to the SC on 10-30-02.



Closed/ 11-06092

Req SC

D: Submit any comments on the RLTC Requirements Introduction by 11/6/02.

R: No comments were posted. No objections were noted in the 11-06-02 call. SC has decided to agree on the Introduction.




Deirdre Mulligan

Submit schedule proposal for reviewing examples or use cases.

R: Examples submitted 01-15-03




Req SC

Review the Requirements Document against the Introduction. Comments are due before the 11-12-02 meeting.




Hari Reddy

Update Requirements Document and send to SC to review




Thomas DeMartini

Submit descriptive example to be placed into the texts for SX15 and R25.




Aaron Burstein, Thomas DeMartini, Lisa Rein

Submit changes to Introduction Paragraph 5.




Hari Reddy, Bob Glushko

Develop a schedule for the Requirements SC





  1. Review open action items.

Hari: Have not been able to meet with Bob Glushko on Action item 18. Bob’s schedule is very tight.


  1. Discussion on meeting minutes format


There was a discussion on condensing the meeting minutes. Hari explained that the minutes were never written to be verbatim transcripts but to try to capture as the important aspects of the conversation. Originally, we took condensed notes but were later accused of not taking proper notes. So for about 6 months Hari has been taking more detailed notes, which the committee now feels may be too much. Basically this is no win situation for the meeting scribe.


From consensus of the committee, the notes will be written in a more condensed format.



The meeting times were also discussed. When the TC was formed, the membership decided to rotate the times to make the meeting times more palatable for people from various time zones. There was a suggestion to move the Requirements SC meeting to 5pm ET on Wednesdays which is the General Body time since the General Body is only meeting once every 4 weeks. Most people should have this time open. The week that there is a conflict, the Requirements SC would not meet.


The suggestion will be posted on the mailing list for comment.



3. Review Examples submitted by the Law Clinic

1.      http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-examples/200211/msg00004.html


Aaron pointed out that there were no new updates since the Nov 11, 2002 posting.


Hari:  Alice tells Alice she can excerpt relevant portions of the musical recording.  Does she have permission to publish excerpts of the recordings?


Aaron: Yes


Hari:  Does it have to be streaming file?

Aaron:  No.  She creates a stream from some other source.


Hari:  She would obtain a music file.  What are the permissions as part of that?


Aaron:  I don’t know, the example doesn’t say.  I think the idea here is that the original file did not have a permission to create a stream of a portion of their original file, there was no explicit permission to do exactly that task.


Hari:  What do you mean by a stream?


Aaron:  A file put in streaming audio file.


Thomas:  Is it assumed Alice is going to make this stream with a piece of software.  So is that software the first one that needs to see that license?  Can we assume that software would trust Alice?


Aaron:  Yes


Thomas:  So the visitors to Alice’s site, they would also trust Alice?


Aaron:  I’m not sure. I guess I would have to think about that a little bit.  Why would the viewers of her site need to trust her?


Thomas:  There is a license that Alice tells the visitors on her site they are allowed to listen to the excerpts.  Why would she tell that if their software didn’t trust her in the first place?


Aaron:  I don’t know why.  I guess you could tell them that.  There is a large gap between that and software that trusts Alice.


Thomas:  At least the software trusts Alice enough to tell them they can play the excerpts.


Aaron: ok


Thomas:  Another general question.  Is the next set of examples meant to be in addition to these or to supercede this set?


Aaron:  They were in addition to.


Brian:  I thought these were to superceed.  The Nov 11 examples were nebulous and not crisp.  One of the things that happened, was the newer examples were crisper and more what the license issue is.  They were distilled from the originals.  I think that we were supposed to look at these later examples and turn them to the examples subcommittee to look at them.


Hari:  Deirdre was quite vocal about these not being sent to the committee. 


Aaron:  I agree with Brian, the second set of examples might be easier to go through. I don’t think we meant the second set to supercede these.


Hari:  When can we understand the first set of examples like we understand the second set?


Aaron: Is our goal to get the first set to the level of the second set?


Hari:  I thought we could review the first set.  We’ve only had some small discussions on this set.


Lisa requested more time to review the examples before sending them to the examples SC. The SC then started to review the second set of examples.


2. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200301/msg00006.html

     with follow up by Brian:



Hari:  The first one was example on first sale.  Any questions people have on this example?  (no comments)  There was a questions on communications and the use of the original license that was also raised by Brian.


Thomas:  Example 5, lending a borrowed object, there is a person A and person B and when Person A lends to B, they don’t notify the content holder and when person B lends to person C…


Brian:  My comments are about an earlier version of something sent by the Clinic.  If you look at example 1, step 4 says that the original copyright holder is not notified.  In an earlier draft, it says there is no use of the original license. There is an issue here…the way the examples were phrased, there was no communication requirement or no dependence on the first license and I went back and said did you mean A, or B or C.  They said there is no notification to the clearinghouse.


Brian:  The example implies a particular implementation scenario.  The fact that the first thing that is supposed to happen was that there was a declaration between A&B when one issues a license to B.  There was also desire on the part of the Clinic to not have the entire providence of the book reflected in the chain of licenses. So if it goes from A to B to C, but that CH wouldn’t know about the licenses from CH to A to B to C.  I am not sure that a) that is a realistic requirement in the electronic digital world and b) I’m not sure it’s mutually satisfiable that CH not be involved in the loop. 


Aaron:  You’re right in characterizing the links in the chain that we didn’t want to see.  I thought that what would come out of the examples was one way to do it.  Maybe it doesn’t do it exactly as stated in the example but we could come to an approximation and see how close it gets. Whatever comes out of modeling it will be useful knowledge.


Brian:  There are a couple of different ways to model it.  Depending on the secondary properties you want, you can model it in different ways.  Can we get agreement from people on the call that we understand my comments and Aaron’s comments.  Do we understand Ex. 1?  Are there other issues outside of this?


Hari:  I think I share your concern that there are many ways to model this.  But it is the objective of this exercise to model it in one way.  Again, we don’t have a vision of what that system looks like and the other protocols that needs to be developed and so forth.


Aaron:  Brian posted a good question.  The example kind of has two themes to it.  One is that A transfers the right to B, A is cut out of the license and the second is the right holder did not need to be notified of A’s exercise.  Is there a way to model that so both conditions are mutually satisfied?


Thomas:  Is it acceptable to have a 3rd party to indicate which person is the owner of a particular copy?


Aaron:  Yes.


Brian:  That is one way to model it.  There are 2 separate things going on and we should be clear.  How do we model a transfer or delegation and 2) how would one build a protocol around it that has the following privacy preserving properties.  It can be done with a third party, knowledge protocols, etc. I think the examples should focus on here’s how we model the delegation or transfer and then the protocol issue.  The protocol issue is out of the scope of our working group, but it’s important stuff.  Protocol issues are not in scope of our working group.  Our scope is the licensing format.  It’s not in our charter to design protocols.


There were no other comments on the first example.


It was also determined that the examples 2-6 were clarified with the discussion on example 1.


Discussion on Example 7:

Brian:  I believe I felt this was under-specified.  I can have a copy in any format, but can only use it in one format at a time.  I have license saying I can put them in 3 or 4 formats, but only use it one at a time.  You can have also have something that implies you automatically have a right to upgrade to a higher quality.  You can express that in a license, you can say “I’m going to give you a right to obtain high quality video if you pay me $1, but I can also give you a high quality video by paying me 25 cents if you already have the right to the lower quality video. 


Aaron:  I think that strays a bit from the example we gave.  I think that something like a blanket conversation right is more along the lines of what we were talking about here.


Brian:  OK. Presumably the point was to identify a format that was the equivalent.  So you can move to format A, B & C whenever you want. 


Aaron:  I think what we went over with the first example, I’m sure there is some piece of software interpreting the license. 


Brian:  We can do it as a blanket format conversion.  At the end of the day, it becomes a set of the equivalent.  It becomes a right to call a format converter and gives certain parameters.


Aaron:  I think that sounds reasonable.


Brian:  Then you are showing these as variables.  This can be a good motivator to show how these variables can show a small set or a big set. 


Hari:  Who can specify those variables?


Brian:  When you issue a license you can define what the set is, an instance of the variables, patterns come into play there.  You do it as something, by the guy who gets the license in the first place does it, you can say the person who purchases it gets a number of conversions, and there are a number of ways to come to it.  You say you have the right to put this into the following 4 formats, or you get to choose one format.


Aaron:  Yes, I think that’s a good approach.  I think ultimately we’ll have to look at who’s doing what question in any given license, but as a matter of finding a way to express this in a license, that sounds right. 


Thomas:  I have a question on the use of copy. You can have one copy sitting on a server somewhere.  Does it mean that copy sitting on the server can be used in 2 different ways, or that you only want there to be one use of any particular copy at the time?  If you have 2 computers trying to use the same copy, only one can do it at one time?


Aaron:  We’re looking at how the principal is exercising rights.  We’re looking at how the person is using the entity.  Using computers is not so much, that some servers have copies of the resource.


Thomas:  I’m a user, I have 2 computers in front of me, and I have another in a room that is a server, and I’m going to listen to it on 2 computers at the same time, does that violate using one copy at the same time?


Aaron:  Yes, that would violate it.


Thomas:  How is the work identified?  There are many ways to identify work.  You can identify them by their title or title and author to be a unique identifier.  A unique identifier could be a hash of the file, title and author will be the same, but hash of the file will be different on every format.  Is it important to use one of those?


Aaron:  Good question.  I think that the example about format conversation, I think in our real-world conception, is title and author specification.  Let me think about that a little bit more, look through the examples and see which way is best approach and try to and point out where it’s important to point out how the work is specified. 


Meeting adjourned at 12:04PM













[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC