[rights] Digital Rights at OASIS?

[Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>]

To:

Edward Cobb (edward.cobb@oasis-open.org, cc: ecobb@bea.com)
Colin Evans (colin.evans@oasis-open.org, cc: colin.evans@intel.com)
Patrick J. Gannon (patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org)
Jim Hughes (jim.hughes@oasis-open.org, cc: jim_hughes@hp.com),
Christopher Kurt (chris.kurt@oasis-open.org, cc: ckurt@microsoft.com)
Simon Nicholson (simon.nicholson@oasis-open.org, cc: 
simon.nicholson@eng.sun.com)
Laura Walker (laura.walker@oasis-open.org, cc: laurawalker@laurawalker.com)
Michael Weiner (michael.weiner@oasis-open.org, cc: mweiner@us.ibm.com)
Karl Best, Director Technical Operations (karl.best@oasis-open.org)
cc: Rights TC (rights@oasis-open.org)

Dear OASIS Board Members and Karl Best,
 
The Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) joined OASIS to participate in 
standards efforts on behalf of its members (primarily academics). 
Academic interests are sometimes not represented in standards efforts 
and we saw OASIS as a place where application standards, which have 
immediate impact on our members, would be likely to develop.

The area of digital rights concerns the SBL and its members, since all 
have the dual roles of producers and consumers of digital resources. We 
joined the Rights TC with the expectation that the Rights TC and OASIS 
more generally, would be locus of an effort to define useful standards 
for digital rights.

As a partial result of very productive email exchanges with Thomas 
Demartini (also a member of the Rights TC), there has been a move to 
more precisely define the scope of issues to be addressed by the TC. It 
appears that the TC is now considering that it will deal with a core 
permission expressions language, plus standard extensions and has no 
intent to address the broader issue of digital rights.

As a member of OASIS but one without unlimited funds for standards 
participation, the SBL finds the limiting of the role of OASIS in the 
development of a digital rights standards more than a little disturbing. 
Not only does it diminish the role of OASIS to providing a permissions 
component on which other organizations can develop standards, but it 
increases the expense of effective participation in development of 
digital rights standards elsewhere by members of OASIS.

It is significant to note that the Rights TC was originally formed on 
the basis of an agreement that ContentGuard would contribute XrML 2.0 to 
OASIS for development of a digital rights standard. 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200203/msg00001.html (A 
message from Karl Best representing that the TC had been approved by the 
OASIS Board.)

Despite the OASIS board approving formation of the TC on the 
representation that XrML 2.0 would be submitted by ContentGuard, in 
fact, XrML 2.1, was submitted and accepted without review at the first 
meeting of the TC. XrML 2.1 appeared at the first TC meeting, and 
reports from the attendees differ on what was represented about the 
content of XrML 2.1. The record of the meeting does not reflect any 
notice to the attendees that a portion of XrML 2.0, the portion 
essential for any XrML application had been removed.

However, it is not necessary for the OASIS Board to address who said 
what to who, etc., and similar disputes relying on personal accounts. 
The document record is clear that it was represented to the OASIS Board 
that XrML 2.0, which could be the basis for a set of meaningful digital 
rights standards, was offered as the basis for the OASIS Board approving 
the formation of this TC. What attendees of the TC did or did not know 
or accept at the first meeting is largely irrelevant since what offered 
to the OASIS Board as the basis for formation of this TC in fact has not 
been tendered by ContentGuard.

A comparison of XrML 2.0 as promised with XrML 2.1 as submitted 
demonstrates how the submission eliminates any significant role for 
OASIS in the development of a meaningful rights language. The TC was 
established with the rationale that XrML would be handed over to OASIS 
"for long-term development and governance of the rights language" 
http://www.contentguard.com/press_040302.asp 
http://www.xrml.org/press_040302.asp The central concern of the SBL is 
that the actual submission by ContentGuard, contrary to prior 
representations for the formation of the TC, deprives OASIS of any 
meaningful role in the development of a digital rights language.

You will note that the critical Part IV Content Extension Schema was 
removed from XrML 2.0 in when XrML 2.1 was presented to Rights TC at its 
first meeting. That removal effectively prevents OASIS from having a 
principal role in the development of the most important aspect of 
digital rights, that is the development of standards for digital rights 
in applications.(Part IV was as well-developed as any other part of XrML 
2.0 so I see no technical reason for its omission.) There are serious 
disagreements within the TC which are the direct result of the removal 
of Part IV, which defines key functions like "copy, loan, read, write, 
backup, etc."

Not wanting to point out a problem without suggesting a solution, I 
would propose the following:

1. That the OASIS Board call upon ContentGuard to honor its original 
committment to contribute XrML 2.0 to OASIS.

2. That the OASIS Board approve re-formulation of the charter of the 
Rights TC to properly focus its work on the permissions language portion 
of XrML 2.0.

3. That the OASIS Board give public notice that it is seeking proposals 
to form new TC's to address domain specific standards based on the 
Content Extension Schema of XrML 2.0.

I would note that such steps would put OASIS at the center of 
development of digital rights standards and could well attract industry 
participants who would otherwise not seek OASIS membership. In the 
interest of full disclosure, such steps would also make it easier for 
the SBL to participate in such standards and enhance the value of its 
OASIS membership.

I can be reached most easily by email: pdurusau@emory.edu or by phone: 
404-727-2337 if I can contribute to your resolution of this request.

Aside to Karl Best: Please acknowledge receipt of this request and its 
submission to the OASIS Board. I am unaware of the proper procedure for 
direct submission of requests to the OASIS Board so I have addressed 
this message to all the board members. If there is some other procedure 
that I should follow with this request, please advise and I will resubmit.

Patrick

(Due to the vagaries of email service experienced by TC members I have 
taken the liberty of addressing this post to the OASIS email addresses 
for members of the OASIS Board and their more customary email addresses. 
So that other members of the Rights TC will be aware of this request, I 
have also posted it to the main Rights TC mailing list.)

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu