- From: Jo Rabin <jo.rabin@db.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 17:10:08 +0000
- To: "public-md-odrl-profile@w3.org" <public-md-odrl-profile@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <9C704AD8-B594-4969-9E0F-35C525C72E25@db.com>
Further comments on the document:
Thanks
Jo
5. the document date changes to today’s date when it is rendered, and there is no other mechanism to refer to the version in the document text
6. Abstract: “additional vocabulary” – would be clearer if it clarified “additional to ODRL”
7. Contents: document needs Acknowledgements and References (especially to pick up on documents referenced in 2.3.1 MiFID etc.)
8. The clarity of the document might be improved by describing Assets and Resources before describing Parties, as Parties are distinguished by what they do with Assets etc. and having it this way round might reduce the need for forward references
9. in 2.1.2 the words “compliant transformation of rights” could usefully make an appearance
10. 2.1.2.1.1 Definition of Originator: “acting as the first assigner” delete “and delivering it for use”. But see below.
11. 2.1.2.1.1 Scope Note – add clarifying text that calls out the point “not just exchanges”
12. 2.1.2.1.2 Provider: the NOTE shows Provider receiving rights and receiving data but should not, as a party that is a provider acts as a consumer in receiving the rights and data
13. 2.1.2.1.4 Service Facilitator: Same? Or would it make more sense to make Provider and service facilitator a sub-class of Consumer? In which case Originator is a type of Provider that is not a consumer?
14. Note text has key words highlighted in red, some other treatment might be beneficial, see also comment 2.a.iv and 2.b from before
15. 2.1.2.1.5 Administrator: how can an administrator receive rights without receiving data, there is no party that delivers rights only.
16. 2.2.1 Resource Types: suggest rewording for clarity, removing reerene to Originator and Consumer. Data supply chain is a term used with a specific meaning that could be defined somewhere
17. 2.2.1.1 Resource, Editorial Note: insert “version” after delayed
18. Same: refer also to editorial note on 2.2.1.1.1 Source
18: 2.2.1.1 resource, 2nd editorial note: add see 2.3.1.5.
19. same: Provide example of transformation that means a resource is no longer the same
20. 2.2.1.1.1 Source: question of whether a Source is a Resource.
21. The description is opaque, requires clarification.
22. 2.2.1.1.2 Asset: Clarification that in the scope of this document, Resources are never transferred, only assets
23. Same, Note: text would benefit from clarification, especially of the word “transform” which is used in reference to properties, not as a verb
24. Same, following the note, Typo in There many ways
25. 2.2.2.1 Resource Properties (and elsewhere) use “Identifies” in place of “points”
26. If only Assets can be transferred then how can a resource have a provider?
27. 2.3.1.1.3.1 Platform Trading MIFD => MiFID
From: Jo Rabin <jo.rabin+external@db.com>
Date: Monday, 17 May 2021 at 20:00
To: "public-md-odrl-profile@w3.org" <public-md-odrl-profile@w3.org>
Subject: Comments on Profile Document 10 May 2021
Resent from: <public-md-odrl-profile@w3.org>
Resent date: Monday, 17 May 2021 at 19:59
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.
---
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.
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2021 17:10:44 UTC