W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2003

RE: Spec List

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:47:14 -0800
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9013A92A9@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Hal Lockhart" <hlockhar@bea.com>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

If we mention XrML, we should also mention at least one alternative DRM solution which is unencumbered (e.g. ODRL, which is a W3C Submission).

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Hal Lockhart
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:53 AM
> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Spec List
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:54 AM
> > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: Spec List
> >
> >
> >
> > I think that XrML 2.0 should be added to the spec list.
> > http://www.xrml.org/index.asp.  This spec covers digital rights
> > management, and as far as I can see it has achieved fairly wide
> > adoption.  It is interesting that this is an entirely 
> proprietary spec,
> > with wide patent rights claimed by the source, ContentGuard,
> > http://www.contentguard.com/.  Nonetheless, as far as I can 
> see it is
> > plausibly achieving the status of a de facto standard.
> 
> This is not at all clear. The OASIS RLTC has made no progress for six
> months. What was submitted to this TC differs substantially 
> from what was
> "adopted" by MPEG3. Because of ContentGuard spin and 
> Microsoft backing it
> has received wide attention and is likely to be supported in Microsoft
> products for DRM, but its relationship to Web Services is not 
> clear. There
> are a number of other DRM languages out there and some claim to be
> unemcumbered by the ContentGuard patents. Meanwhile, there 
> are a number of
> other patents which may apply to uses of Xrml. Microsoft is currently
> involved in litigation on this issue. A very confusing area to say the
> least.
> >
> > I have also found that my description of SPML (which I 
> admitted I didn't
> > understand_ was wildly off the mark.  It would be a 
> kindness if someone
> > would provide a simple, two sentence description of what SPML is for
> > and, if possible, whether there is anything else in that 
> space.  I note
> > that SMPL seems to be about to be ratified by OASIS and, as 
> far as I can
> > tell, it is not particularly controversial.  (Or maybe nobody cares
> > because there is something else more popular in that space ???)
> >
> SPML defines provisioning in this way:
> 
> "Provisioning is the automation of all the steps required to 
> manage (setup,
> amend & revoke) user or system access entitlements or data relative to
> electronically published services".
> 
> SPML provides a simple message framework for a) initiating a 
> provisioning
> process and b) conveying the data necessary to provision 
> specific entities.
> 
> Provisioning can be seen as a highly elaborated and 
> specialized subset of
> Administration, which in turn is a subset of Management.
> 
> There is nothing else in the space as far as I am aware, however it
> necessarily overlaps with activites that have a more general 
> scope, such as
> WSDM. A future alignment of these two is quite possible.
> 
> The main criticisms of SPML have been that is lacks features that some
> people consider essential. SPML has published a roadmap which projects
> future enhancements designed to remedy this.
> 
> Again the link to Web Services is not entirely clear, except 
> for the fact
> that SPML is itself a Web Service.
> 
> Hal
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 12:52:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:23 GMT