Comments on Profile Document 10 May 2021

Hi Editors,

Congratulations on getting the document thus far, it certainly shows that over a year’s effort has gone into it!

Hi CG Colleagues

Following a conversation with Ben this afternoon, he encouraged me to exemplify making comments on the document. Now, this level of commenting might be painful to you, but Ben assured me that the comments are useful … i.e.  I’ve written a ton of comments on a few short sections. Please don’t be put off by this, having read forward in the document, density of comments diminishes substantially.

Also, although my comments may appear to be very nit-picky and quite critical, it boils down to the following:


  1.  Is there a simpler way of saying things so that earlier things don’t depend on later things to be understood
  2.  If some thing is the same as another thing then the same terminology should be used.
  3.  If some things are related, could be confused for each other, then the distinction should be explained


Somewhere deep within me I think a picture could be drawn of the value chain, the participants, their roles, and I think that picture would make a useful reference to the reader as they go through the document.

Jo

Market Data Profile for ODRL (w3c.github.io)<https://w3c.github.io/market-data-odrl-profile/md-odrl-profile.html>

(https://github.com/w3c/market-data-odrl-profile/commit/f2df772619514c1eb9b3ac884108b5c208cc0841#diff-3c1c518b32672f299fc7f2e4f9aa89d1f11714de038a2168de96c494f4eefa49)



  1.  Status of this Document
     *   Links for comments are incorrect
  2.  §2 Supply chain metamodel & General
     *   Please spell out the scope of the document and its coverage – some terms need to be described in “natural language”

                                                               i.      Market Data – e.g. price and trade-related data for a financial instrument reported by a trading venue such as a stock exchange
(I don’t think we intend to limit the scope, but the document makes a claim that it is suitable for that scope)

                                                             ii.      Supply Chain – e.g. interactions between participants involved in the supply and consumption of market data

                                                           iii.      License – e.g. a specification of the actions that are either permitted and/or required (rights and obligations) , in respect of some set of market data, as a result of being a participant in the supply chain

                                                           iv.      Suggest denoting terms that do not have any deeper explanation in italics.

                                                             v.      Use of consistent terminology concerning such terms would assist understanding

     *   Forward references to be annotated with “q.v.”. Try to avoid forward references.
     *   Defined terms from ODRL to be designated as such (by some accessible artefact)– a formal listing of such terms might be useful
     *   Where terms are close in meaning it could be helpful to explain the distinction: e.g. Assignee and licensee
     *   “Direct licensee”, does this convey a different meaning to “licensee”? If so, should it be a defined term?
     *   “third party recipient” meaning consumer that is not the licensee and not an affiliate of the licensee
  1.  § 2.1.1 Party Types
     *   is the entailment of ownership “belongs to” necessary here? Is it not a matter of the license to define the relationship (by enumeration as suggested elsewhere etc.)
     *   Under what circumstances is an internal party not an affiliate? (example)
     *   When is the Licensing party not the Assignee? (example)
     *   External Party … and is not the licensee themselves.
     *   Educational Party – trying to reduce circularity, this makes reference to Asset where perhaps it does not need to “an accredited institution using market data for the purposes of education or training”
  2.  § 2.1.2 Party Roles
     *   “Data resource” and “Asset” appear to be used synonymously, needs clarification
     *   Use of the terms vendor and exchange as participants in the supply chain could be exemplified under  comment 2.a.ii.
     *   “final Consumers” (in this supply chain, i.e. in the distribution activity that is covered under a particular license?)






---
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.