W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ole-comment@w3.org > December 2015

Charter updated

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:09:41 +0000
To: "public-ole-comment@w3.org" <public-ole-comment@w3.org>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Renato Iannella <renato@knowledgeflux.com>, Ben Whittam Smith <benedict.whittamsmith@thomsonreuters.com>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at>
Message-ID: <56703B45.2090702@w3.org>
Dear all,

Thank you for the various comments made on the proposed WG charter. I 
have worked through them all and taken actions to implement your 
suggestions. See http://w3c.github.io/ole/charter.html

The only one I have not acted on is Renato's request to call the WG 
'ODRL' and to expand that acronym as Open Digital Resource Licensing WG

Whilst I am sympathetic, we are constrained by multiple voices:

- the word licensing suggests a narrower scope than is needed;

- in fact we need to cover policies, terms of use etc. but that then 
gets us dangerously close to another third rail which is the idea that 
the metadata can/should be used as part of legal compliance;

- the word 'rights' is equally problematic for some.

So I take from this that none of licensing, rights or policy can occur 
in the WG name - which is how we end up with Open Permissions and 
Obligations Expressions as the name of the working group.

The naming of the WG does not constrain the titles of the specifications 
it produces. In other words, if chartered, the WG will be fully able to 
name its documents as it sees fit.

Thanks again for all the input which is much appreciated.

I am hopeful that it will be sent to the W3C Membership for their review 
in the very near future.



Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead

+44 (0)7887 767755
Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 16:09:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 15 December 2015 16:09:51 UTC