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

> On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:11 , Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Ivan. I do completely understand your position on this. And yes, absolutely, this is not just about publishing.

Right. I have (re-)started some discussion within the team on this, but that is the maximum I can/could do.

> 
> Apologies if I've seemed to be a pest on this, but I took it as my responsibility to surface and articulate what the most important metadata issues are for publishers today. I would have felt remiss if I had not pushed rights metadata front and center.
> 
> As we said originally, the point of doing that was to determine (a) whether there is anything about the OWP that can address the issue; (b) if the DPIG was the right group to put the issue before the W3C, and (c) to identify the appropriate parts of the W3C that we should encourage to work on it. In a roundabout way, we're doing that in this case.
> 
> Like it or not, most of the world (at least the publishing world, which is my world) sees ODRL as "a W3C standard." People don't read the fine print. Especially to the non-technical or less-technical, it walks and quacks like a W3C standard, and they find it just ducky. When I point out that it is not actually a W3C recommendation or even on a track to become one, they say "Huh?!?!? What?!?!?"

:-) Yeah, community groups have this effect. But it is a good problem to deal with!

Cheers

Ivan

> 
> As you suggested at TPAC, the likely place to start really is the ODRL CG: it is open to "anybody" (ahem) and currently does not have participants from some key areas. News and academia are there; as far as individuals go, I was pleased to see my friend Francis Cave (who btw often participates in our BISG committee meetings, though not on the rights issue to my knowledge--I will see if I can get him pulled into that), and of course Michael Steidl (and others) from the IPTC, and Simon Wilkinson from our old-standby Pearson are in the CG. But if that is to become the generally used vocabulary and syntax, then there are key people from other sides of publishing who should be at that table. I will start by calling Michael and Francis to get their take on the current status of that CG, for starters.
> 
> Sorry if I've belabored the point, but I really wanted to be clear on this because where I come from this is THE big looming issue. As we've amply demonstrated, the obvious need to associate content/subject metadata with documents and their components is really a matter of education; very likely, little or nothing needs to be changed in the OWP, people (and systems) just need to use what's already there. But rights metadata is a different story. Folks in publishing are finally realizing how critical machine-readable, interoperable rights metadata that encompasses all aspects of publishing (including, as Dianne pointed out, advertising), in a multi-layered, granular manner, has suddenly become. If ODRL is not yet there, then imo it, or a descendant of it, needs to get there.
> 
> --Bill K
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] 
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 1:43 AM
> 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 14 Nov 2014, at 07:31 , Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> wrote:
>> 
>> "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?)
> 
> Indeed, but that was slightly different. The current W3C 'gang', ie, the team as well as the technical people usually around W3C are mostly technical people, who can judge the annotation work, write and also give judgement on charters, etc. The issue with a possible standardization of ODRL is that this is not a purely technical issue. And that is worried me at the F2F, and continues to worry me.
> 
> All that being said: this is not our decision. It is not even my decision, because such a vocabulary would not be for publishing only. I know that the issue has come up in the team, and it is undecided; the only thing I can do is to forward this issue to Phil Archer, the responsible person, and we shall see...
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 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 Friday, 14 November 2014 22:38:04 UTC