I did take some notes from the whiteboard discussion. Unfortunately it was just the items listed on the whiteboard and I am quite sure I missed a few of the items near the end of the list. I did not attempt capture the discussion around each item. I was too busy enjoying the exchange amongst the collection of DRM experts. My notes also did not include the diagram that Norman mentions. Maybe this list will jog some memories
Also, I am sure others were taking notes. For example I think Dave Parrot was taking notes, which he does very well based on my experience at the OeBF meeting in Paris.
Dave: Do you have any more to add to this list or the diagram?
Summary of suggestions for things W3C could / should do
· Trust Framework
· Signed Metadata
· Rights Language
· Do no Harm
· Requirements Study
· Seamless end-user + content provider means to do this
· WG for Rights language
· WG for Rights messaging
· Interest Group DRM technical Protection mechanisms
· Collaboration (eg MPEG) CfP existing and planned eg Rights language and Data Dictionary
· eg Indecs
· Architecture/Understructure (to provide Hooks, HTTP1.1R)
· Need something rapid...field in HTTP ./ HTML important step/msg
· Don't standardize copy protection
· Architecture overview, take a step back and develop a glossary Trust relationship with IETF
· Similar to P3P (and differences) and link to P3P
· Access rights
· Survey of legal aspects (respect for same)
· Library issues (put into an IG)
· Couple access rights and Privacy rights (explore technical and legal)
· Leverage cross-sector / industry interest - identify the general technical needs (IG or Workshop)
· Expressing Rights language ontology in RDF / XML
· Four perspectives need to be represented (business, legal, social, technical)
· Avoid exclusive focus on eyes and ears
· Consider other digital delivery networks
· Content to travel from web to storage - persistent description
· Examination of Patent issues - how patent interacts with DRM
· Allow offline use
· Complex media combinations
· XML signature effort
· Archiving and preservation of knowledge and cultural works on the Internet for future generations
· Diff. btw Mgmt of Digital Rights and Digital Mgmt of Rights
· Restate accessibility goals
· Be sure whatever is created accommodates amateur as well as professional creators
· Scope of digital rights language
· Human rights
Brad Gandee
XrML Evangelist
ContentGuard
6500 Rock Spring Dr., Ste 110
Bethesda, MD 20817
(p) 240-694-1220
(c) 703-629-3414
-----Original Message-----
From: Paskin, Norman (DOI-ELS) [mailto:n.paskin@doi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 5:02 AM
To: 'Rigo Wenning'
Cc: DRM-Public-List; Daniel Weitzner
Subject: RE: Summary Report published
You asked for my proposal on this.
My recollection, possibly not photographic after three months [so others
feel free to correct], was that the whiteboard containied a simple diagram
of major initiatives in this sphere of digital rights management. It wasn't
a table, mopre a free hand thought bubble diagram.
The top three ovals were: on the left W3C; in the middle indecs; on the
right MPEG-21
The W3C oval then had a link to IETF, indicating existing liaison;
the indecs oval had a link to IDF (DOI) and to ONIX, indicating
implementation
the MPEG oval had a link to ISO, indicating a formal role.
I recall, that ODRL and XRML were on the chart too; being a whiteboarded
diagram it no doubt lent itself to a more flexible interpretation than text.
So my suggestions: that under "Related Activities" in the report we add
indecs/DOI/ONIX, and that the report include the following:
"The workshop concluded that liaison and collaboration to prevent needless
duplication of effort should be encouraged. In particular, three top level
activities were noted in this sphere of digital rights management:
W3C - infrastructure and syntax standards, link to IETF etc.
indecs - semanatic and content industry standards, link to practical
implementations e.g. DOI, ONIX
MPEG-21 - ISO standards, proposed development of multimedia framework
standards
As an example of such collaboration now taking place, the development of a
Rights Data Dictionary (RDD), a common dictionary or vocabulary for
intellectual property rights, based on the <indecs> Framework [which
outlined the fundamental principals and key terminology implemented in DOI
applications and ONIX (widely used in publishing and increasingly with
audiovisual products)] is even now under way. (see
http://www.doi.org/news/010418-multimediaIP.html. One of the aims of this
study is to provide input to MPEG 21 and other standards activities."
-----Original Message-----
-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
Sent: 04 May 2001 03:31
To: Paskin, Norman (DOI-ELS)
Cc: DRM-Public-List; Daniel Weitzner
Subject: Re: Summary Report published
Norman,
<indecs> was a major input and we are aware of it. This is
reflected in the position-papers and the minutes. I think a table
with related activities would help a lot.
The interpretation I would make of your statement is, that
<indecs> is not well represented in the summary report. I would
ask for a suggestion from you and/or Godfrey.
I therefor would appreciate, if you could help me reconstruct the
table you mentioned. This table was not minuted nor photographed.
As I was standing with my back to it as I was chairing the
session, I have a somewhat incomplete memory of it.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Best,
Rigo Wenning W3C/INRIA
Policy Analyst Privacy Activity Lead
mail:rigo@w3.org 2004, Routes des Lucioles
+33 (0)6 73 84 87 31 F-06902 Sophia Antipolis
http://www.w3.org/
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:48:06AM +0100, Paskin, Norman (DOI-ELS) wrote:
> At the closing session of the W3C DRM meeting, I well recall the final
> whiteboarding session which concluded with drawing up three top level
> activities which we felt should be reconciled, converged, recognised, or
at
> least talking to each other. These were W3c (of course), MPEG-21, and
> indecs (each of which had been described in the meeting at length).
>
> I was disappointed therefore to see that the published final Report makes
no
> mention in "Related Activities" of indecs, or of DOI which is implementing
> many of the key issues discussed. The final whitebaorded diagram seems to
> have been erased from history. Although there is scattered mention in the
> detailed minutes, I believe the final report should reflect this more in
> line with the actual discussion. In particular indecs is I believe very
> relevant as a study for the development of a Rights Data Dictionary (RDD),
a
> common dictionary or vocabulary for intellectual property rights, based on
> the <indecs> Framework [which outlined the fundamental principals and key
> terminology implemented in DOI applications and ONIX (widely used in
> publishing and increasingly with audiovisual products)] is even now under
> way. (see http://www.doi.org/news/010418-multimediaIP.html. One of the
aims
> of this study is to provide input to MPEG 21 and other standards
activities.