RE: Rights Automation Community Group: Invite sent for optional breakout

Hi everyone,

Apologies for needing to resend the announcement for today's meeting, just getting some procedural loose ends tightened up by sending it through the community group distribution list. For those of you who will be joining today, let me send a couple of ideas to think about beforehand:


  *   One concern was that if the names we assign the party that requires an action and the party that fulfils the action are generic that it will be difficult or impossible for applications applying permission logic to determine with certainty which party is being referred to in a particular contract. The suggestion was made that individual, actual, contracts would note use the generic terms, but rather would have them replaced by entity identifiers, removing the uncertainty. Let's think through this more to see if it addresses the issue.



  *   We've also thought about using terms like "Licensee" and "Licensor" to define the parties. We must remember, though, that we're using the parties to define Actions, and the same Action can have the parties reversed in different contexts. For example, we can imagine that the Notification Action could either go from the Licensee to the Licensor, or vice versa. So, the terms we agree on need to be flexible enough to be used in both contexts.


If you won't be attending today I apologize for the diatribe! If you are, looking forward to a good discussion.

Best,
Mark


From: Mark Bird
Sent: September 17, 2020 8:28 PM
To: Klug, Paul (Refinitiv) <paul.klug@refinitiv.com>; Sawkins, David (Refinitiv) <David.Sawkins@refinitiv.com>; jo.rabin@db.com; Michael.Johnson@cmegroup.com; Brady, Ken <ken.brady@morganstanley.com>; john.chappell@gs.com; trisha.perona@fmr.com; ilya.slavin@jpmorgan.com; laura.perdue@fmr.com; Khan, Atiqur <Atiqur.Khan@gs.com>; Bock, Jeremy <Jeremy.Bock@fmr.com>; Jude, Daniel <Daniel.Jude@cmegroup.com>; 'Mark R Durenberger' <mark.r.durenberger@db.com>; 'Markus, Olga' <Olga.Markus@morganstanley.com>; Mark Bird <mark.bird@databp.com>; Mark Bird <mark.bird@databp.com>; Cafarelli, Richard <Richard.Cafarelli@cmegroup.com>; Varytimou, Natasa (Refinitiv) <Natasa.Varytimou@refinitiv.com>; elizabeth@whiterockdatasolutions.com; Aaron Garforth <agarforth@axonfs.com>; Drewniak, Adam (Refinitiv) <Adam.Drewniak@refinitiv.com>; Honore, Adam <adh@amazon.com>; Casey, Chris <caseycj@amazon.com>; Rimell, Phil <phil.rimell@refinitiv.com>; Alex Stepney <astepney@google.com>; Roberts, Michelle D <michelle.d.roberts@jpmorgan.com>; Whittam Smith, Benedict (Refinitiv) <benedict.whittamsmith@refinitiv.com>; Fred Schultz <fred.schultz@databp.com>; Dorrian, Stephen <sdorrian@cboe.com>; alex.cravero@hsf.com; MacRae, Caspar <Caspar.MacRae@gs.com>; Jane.Finlayson-Brown@AllenOvery.com; Karishma.Brahmbhatt@AllenOvery.com; Defoe, Tom (Refinitiv) <thomas.defoe@refinitiv.com>; Kane, Rachel <Rachel.Kane@hsf.com>
Subject: Rights Automation Community Group: Invite sent for optional breakout

Hi everyone,

For our first off-week breakout session we'll try to find once and for all a pair of terms that generically describe the parties involved in a given Action. In ODRL, when an Action fulfills a Duty, the Action is taken by one party at the insistence of another party. So far, we've used the terms Debtor and Creditor to name these parties. In this breakout session, we'll attempt to agree on replacement terms that are both generic and flexible, while also descriptive.

Find more information on the issue thread<https://github.com/w3c/market-data-odrl-profile/issues/17>.

This session is completely optional. Looking forward to it!

Best,
Mark



Mark Bird | DataBP
14 Wall Street, Suite 4C
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: 917-257-5519
mark@databp.com<mailto:mark@databp.com>

[A picture containing tableware  Description automatically generated]