Re: Minutes of the W3C Rights Automation Community Group 2021-04-14

Please find the minutes of today’s meeting at Rights Automation Community Group Teleconference – 14 April 2021 (w3.org)<https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html> and pasted below.

Summary of action items

  1.  Ben to send his draft agenda to the CG List as amended by subsequent discussion on this call<https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#a01>
  2.  Ben to send email about learnings from the discussion<https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#a02>
  3.  Michelle to come back on research on Contributor agreements<https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#a03>

Summary of resolutions

  1.  Accept minutes of last meeting<https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#r01>

 Rights Automation Community Group Teleconference
14 April 2021
[Agenda.]<https://github.com/w3c/market-data-odrl-profile/blob/gh-pages/agendas/md-odrl-profile-agenda-2021-04-14.md> [IRC log.] <https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-md-odrl-profile-irc>
Attendees
Present
adam, belen, ben, caspar, ilya, ivan_kirchev, Jeremy, jo, josh, laura, markB, markD, michelle, olga, Stephanie_Toyos, wendy_seltzer
Regrets
nigel, renato
Chair
jo
Scribe
joshuaCornejo
Contents

  1.  Admin<https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t01>
  2.  FSA<https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t02>
  3.  Drafting a playbook for FISD<https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t03>
  4.  Status Update<https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t04>
  5.  AOB<https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t05>
  6.  Summary of action items<https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
  7.  Summary of resolutions<https://www.w3.org/2021/04/14-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary>

Meeting minutes
Admin

<jo_> Minutes of last meeting https://www.w3.org/2021/03/31-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html


Jo: kick-off
… with minutes of the last meeting
… are there any objections ?

Resolution: Accept minutes of last meeting

FSA

<wseltzer> https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/final/


Wendy: I am strategy lead and council to W3C team. I heard you had some questions about the community licensing agreement. I gather you are looking to licence under the final spec agreement. The goal of this is to get patent and copyright commitment for work that goes into W3C.
… the work is into essential claims that is in here and in the W3C patent policy.
… if something is normatively required to agree to commend royalties to use of patent that are essential to the use of the spec. It is a narrow commitment.
… it doesn't apply to things that might be optional or alternative implementations. It is essential claims from section 10.3
… (reads 10.3)
… that is the licence that the FSA asks

Ilya: the question is about the ratification of the extensions of the ODRL language

Ben: I can see how the description you provided relates to a software specification, but with ODRL we are talking about an ontology. So it doesn't provide any guidance on what implementation is - or at least the meaning of implementation is vaguer.
… I wonder if Wendy can clarify what this means when is an ontology rather than a software specification.

Wendy: it might mean that no patents are related to the ontology as there are no essential claims if there is no patent.
… If there is no patentable technology related to the spec.

Ben: it depends on how to interpret
… is it a narrow one or wide one?

Wendy: if there is a spec that describes an algorithm to for implementation and says "YOU MUST USE" - that is an essential claim that is patentable. If there are 2 algorithms, then neither is essential as there are alternatives.

Ilya: in a relatable, you can think about HTML (another standard of W3C), that doesn't specify how to implement it

Jo: hmmm
… thinking about the word "entangle"

Ilya: it is very applicable to the legal world

Jo: I wonder if we can involve Stephanie, and does it clarify anything?

Stephanie: From my perspective it is all understood

Ivan: I think we're on the same page, just wanted to confirm what we agreed internally

Jo: that could be that, inviting everybody else to ask questions to Wendy. Questions on this topic or any other topic?

Ben: a question for Wendy is: why do I have to sign this? What is the benefit?

Wendy: is your group seeking to move this to the W3C recommendation?

Jo: not necessarily

Wendy: do you think multiple groups would find useful this technology, and that there is assurance that their creators have made?
… makes it easier for others to pick up this work and make use of it
… we might have members asking: how can I make sure I am not getting into a patent entanglement? So either they have signed into this agreement or joined the effort of the W3C working group.

Ivan: are you asking for the contributors to ask for any prior commitments of the work they are contributing?

Wendy: no, when a community group moves to a working group. W3C has a policy that working groups makes royalty free commitments.

Jo: trying to summarise, as a participant of the group you have already signed. The FSA is additional, but we don't have particular plans at the moment.

Ben: I think to summarise on your summary.
… is the attraction on signing this FSA is a royalty free basis, if you are a third party and would use it on a royalty free basis.
… as it removes the IP question.

<jo_> noting that the whole thing may be moot since there may not be any IP entailed anyway

Ilya: is this available from the W3C website?

Jo: is linked in the agenda, the email from last week and today's minutes

<jo_> https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/final/


Jo: is there anything else anybody else wants to raise?
… moving on, next topic

Drafting a playbook for FISD

Ben: I had a couple more conversations with David Anderson, he has suggested the date of the 24 of June, it will be great to get an indication now. Because the quicker we can get it into the FISD calendar, the better.
… I will go back to David and say that this is a good date for us. He can mark it down in the calendar.
… the other point, we have discussed which kind of structure we're going to have.
… a 3 minute video, and a demo of the actual translation of PDF licences into ODRL. If anyone else has any other demos they would like to lead, email me or the mailing list.

And then for the final half an hour do a Q&A
… this is what keeps audiences there
… we've spoken about a moderator, that can speak with skepticism and capture the audience better
… has anyone got any comments on the Q&A so far ?

Jo: it all makes sense, before I forget I have to action you on this

Ben: OK

Action: Ben to send his draft agenda to the CG List as amended by subsequent discussion on this call

Ben: I will follow up with a couple of you

Jo: who did you have in mind as a moderator?

Ben: I have someone in mind, but I've not spoken to them.
… someone that is intrigued but skeptical.

Adam: we get calls almost every day on how do we get real time data, but I've not had anyone talk about ODRL to unlock that data.

Laura: do you mean a data owner ?

Adam: the question who is the thinker, and who is thinking into the fine grain of permissioning of these data

Ilya: and these people talking to you, how are they doing these entitlements?

Adam: they are using AWS, but still old school. We are doing all these cool things with the infrastructure, but we don't see a lot of customers

Jo: you clearly have a perspective from the organisation you represent. There are 2 parts of this question: who is interested in modernising their infrastructure, and who thinks the cloud is unlocking new potential.
… you can see we have many members in this group that respond to the latter question.

Adam: you can lift and shift your market data, but in the long term you need to think about digital rights management.
… we need to think how do you use digital rights to trigger your business.

Jo: further comments from folks here?

Ben: we need at least 2 people that would speak persuasively of their view of their future operations.

Laura: I think needs to be a technologist type person, we get all the market data licensing, but the way the technology is used has changed - the technologist wants to get a million miles an hour to get these into cool new products. We are trying to enable speed.

Adam: to your point, we get a lots of questions about historical questions. I can't talk much about that. We do spend a lot of time and energy to lower the barriers. I believe ODRL is an enabler, you can think to get it much faster to your customers.

Jo: I am conscious of the time, Ben you have an action

Mark: you are referring to content originators

Adam: it can be either sides of the equation, everybody should be thinking about that.
… it really serves both sides of the business.

Jo: Ben if you can kick this off
… Adam if you con contribute your views o n this

S/o n/on

Mark: we should present the profile itself
… as it was an objective of this group
… and it was a big achievement

Jo: next topic is update from Ben and Mark on status

Status Update

Ben: one thing I wanted to share with people: we have talked about a temporal model, to support models or do forecasting. The group agreed we should bake that into the model, so every player in the supplier change can share a picture of the past, present and future
… the best place is in the core of the W3C group for ODRL
… (shares his screen)
… I have written a temporal draft
… the ODRL core has been very supportive
… my company most likely will be developing this now
… it is a very robust model and getting a lot of interrogation
… also in the group of ODRL they have been looking at formalising the semantics of ODRL
… the work has only just started
… finally coming back to our own standard
… I have been working with Refinitiv data lately
… they have a model to describe the data
… going through for data at scale
… it raises a few questions, but the model matches very well
… and we can very efficiently query large volumes of data
… but a few edge cases
… (describes Deutsche Borse)

Action: Ben to send email about learnings from the discussion

Ben: what I've learnt from this discussion and from the Refinitiv data and I will send an email to this group

AOB

Michelle: maybe for next time to talk about contributor agreements - lots of firms engage that way.

Ben: are any of those publicly available? If not, let us keep this first version of the standard around market data, and publish our first draft.

Jo: I am actioning you Michelle

Action: Michelle to come back on research on Contributor agreements

<jo_> Many thanks to Josh for scribing

<jo_> --- meeting closed ---




---
This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.

Please refer to https://www.db.com/disclosures for additional EU corporate and regulatory disclosures and to http://www.db.com/unitedkingdom/content/privacy.htm for information about privacy.