[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [rights] OASIS and MPEG roles
In this note I am attempting to clarify my understanding of some terminology as well as an understanding of the role(s) played by OASIS and MPEG in defining the (?) multi-part XrML specification. 1. My initial question arose in connection with published statements about XrML's "Content Extension" It was published in XrML 2.0 as a separate part "eXtensible rights Markup Language (XrML) 2.0 Specification Part IV: Content Extension Schema, 20 November 2001 in files 'xrml2cx.xsd' (schema), 'xrml2part4.pdf' (prose doc) 'CX' was characterized as "an extension to XrML 2.0 that describes rights, conditions, and metadata for digital works, allowing trusted systems to exchange digital works and interoperate." Among the rights were: AccessFolderInfo, Backup, Copy, Delete, Edit, Embed, Execute, Export, Extract, Install, Loan, ManageFolder, Play, Print, Read, Restore, Transfer, Uninstall, Verify, and Write 2. Some docmentation on the XrML website and in the RLTC archives clarifies that indeed, the 'Content Extension' of v2.0 was dropped (omitted) in the XrML 2.1 specification, e.g., a) "XrML 2.1 Technical Overview" "the XrML Content Extension (currently being developed by a separate standards organization/activity) defines conditions appropriate to using digital works (for instance, watermark, destination, and renderer). "The XrML Content Extension was part of the XrML 2.0 specification; In XrML 2.1, the Content Extension is no longer part of the specification, but a separate standards activity (in this case the MPEG organization) will be responsible for developing the Content Extension for XrML" http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200205/msg00029.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200205/bin00000.bin http://xml.coverpages.org/XrMLTechnicalOverview21-DRAFT.pdf b) "XrML Version Information" "Working drafts of changes to the XrML version 2.0 Core and SX extension will be found on the OASIS Rights Committee web site. Working drafts for changes to XrML version 2.0 content extensions can be found on the MPEG Web Site. ContentGuard has recommend to the standards organizations that they agree on a process to maintain a single core and single standard extension set, and thereby improve interoperability and reduce redundancy. It is our expectation that this will be in place before any standards organizations release a final specification based on XrML." http://www.xrml.org/VersionInfo.asp 3. The reference to MPEG in "b" above suggests that the XrML "content extension(s)" of XrML 2.0 are to be developed by MPEG, and indeed, other presentations introduce the labels "MX" and "MPEG Extension" and "MPEG Extension Schema" See Brad Gandee 'ContentGuard XrML Evangelist' http://www.eduworks.com/geoff/Gandee-XrML.ppt http://www.thecommonplace.net/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=6&threadid=25 with the note that "Content Extension (CX) -- which has now become the MPEG Extension (MX)..." 4. One guess, therefore, was that the document recently published by ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 with the text of ISO/IEC CD 21000-5 [REL] (as ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11/N4942) is, in fact, the mystery XrML 'Content Extension'. Two of the editors are familiar to me: Information Technology -- Multimedia Framework -- Part 5: Rights Expression Language. Committee Draft. Edited by Thomas DeMartini (ContentGuard, US), Xin Wang (ContentGuard, US), and Barney Wragg (UMG, UK). According to Brad's note, this CD is out for National Body comments which are due 10-27-02. This draft includes a lot of XrML core material as well as definition for some of the rights defined in XrML 2.0 'CX Content Extension' -- but not for all of them, by any means. [e.g., Read, Write, Execute, Adapt, Copy, Extract, Embed, Modify, Enlarge, Edit, Transfer/Move, Play, Print, Enable, Disable, Install, Uninstall, Delete] A message from Thomas DeMartini (2002-09-10) seems to confirm that the new XrML 'Content Extension' (MX) is indeed embodied in MPEG-21 Part 5 CD. http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2002-08-26-b.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200208/msg00028.html http://mpeg.telecomitalialab.com/working_documents/mpeg-21/rel/REL_cd.zip 5. Oddly, however, there is no indication in the MPEG-21 overview that MPEG-21 Part 5 is the XrML "Content Extension." http://mpeg.telecomitalialab.com/standards/mpeg-21/mpeg-21.htm Similarly, the MPEG liaison document, which mentions the MPEG-21 Part 5 (REL) CD, does not indicate awareness of the fact that Part 5 is being identified as the "XrML Content Extension". It merely says: "Given that our two organizations are pursuing very similar work, we would like to inform the OASIS RLTC that MPEG has produced a Committee Draft (CD) of the MPEG-21 REL (please find this document attached). http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200208/doc00001.doc 6. Finally, Pete Schirling calls MPEG-21 Part 5 a "multimedia extension" - not (the) XrML Content Extension "...The OASIS TC is charged with producing the 'core' rights expression language and MPEG is charged with developing the multimedia extension to the core..." "MPEG has a complete multimedia extension together and has frozen the spec as of July 2002 and issued its 1st ballot (CD) which will be reviewed at the December MPEG meeting. At that time the 2nd (FCD) ballot will be issued..." This raises a question as to whether the MPEG REL is by design competent for non-multimedia application domains. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200209/msg00010.html == And so... I would like to know from relevant authorities if the above lab book of investigation (sorry!) leaves out something vital or misunderstands anything in concluding that: OASIS RLTC is defining the XrML "Core" OASIS RLTC is defining the XrML "Standard Extension" (SX) MPEG-21 is defining the XrML "Content Extension" (MX) in MPEG-21 Part 5, now dependent upon its own internal core MPEG-21 is defining the XrML Data Dictionary (??) in MPEG-21 Part 6 MPEG-21 is defining the XrML [... ??? ] anything else? And also: a) is the XrML "Content Extension" (MX) an example of a "domain" extension in RLTC parlance? b) what bodies (as envisioned) will produce other domain extensions not named above? c) were any of the omissions of particular rights in ISO/IEC CD 21000-5 (relative to XrML 2.0 'CX') due to the fact that MPEG is specifically a multimedia domain ? d) in what sense is ISO/IEC CD 21000-5 (REL) to be awarded privilege [above (other?) domain extensions] in the (??) "XrML Standard" Thanks! ----------------------------------------------------- Robin Cover XML Cover Pages WWW: http://xml.coverpages.org Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletter.html
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC