RE: ODRL Policy Language Version 2.1 Final Draft Specifications – First Call for Comments

"Parties" plural, though. . . . Most of the work these parties have done heretofore has been done independently of each other. E.g., even though IDEAlliance is using ODRL, they have not been involved in developing ODRL to my knowledge. That's the issue I was trying to highlight. Maybe the ODRL CG is the right place for the interested parties all to collaborate; probably so. And maybe that should and can lead to a WG? (Isn't that what happened with Annotations?) Because as we observed at TPAC, and is stated right in the ODRL spec, "It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track." Just sayin'. Since the job of the DPIG is to highlight things that are important to publishing (and NOT to do the work of actually addressing those issues), I still think rights metadata fits that description. I don't mean to be argumentative and I don't dispute the decision at the F2F but I will have a hard time letting go of thinking this. ;-)

--Bill K

-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 4:13 PM
To: Bill Kasdorf
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG; Madi Weland Solomon; Dianne Kennedy (dkennedy@idealliance.org); linda@laburman.com; Julie Morris; Len Vlahos
Subject: Re: ODRL Policy Language Version 2.1 Final Draft Specifications – First Call for Comments


> On 13 Nov 2014, at 02:20 , Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks! Very timely. In fact at a meeting I attended last week IDEAlliance committed to basing their rights implementation on ODRL (their focus is primarily magazines, and they are working on getting quite an extensive specification and vocabulary done in the next few months), and they also met with BISG last week, who is also working on rights issues (focusing on books). I've copied the appropriate people at those organizations to make sure they're aware of this. (You see why I was so insistent on saying that rights metadata is a big issue for publishers!)

Turning your argument around, this means that there *are* groups out there who do this. In other words, I think it was a wise decision at the F2F meeting that this Interest Group should not join a crowded party:-)

Ivan


> --Bill K
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:15 PM
> To: W3C Digital Publishing IG
> Cc: Madi Weland Solomon; Bill Kasdorf
> Subject: FYI: ODRL Policy Language Version 2.1 Final Draft Specifications – First Call for Comments
> 
> The issue of right management came up a lot these days; this may be relevant.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/2014/11/12/odrl-version-2-1-final-draft-specifications-first-call-for-comments/
> 
> Ivan
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C 
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704

Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 23:32:28 UTC