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

Re: Charter updated

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:47:32 +0100
Cc: "public-ole-comment@w3.org" <public-ole-comment@w3.org>, Renato Iannella <renato@knowledgeflux.com>, Benedict Whittam Smith <benedict.whittamsmith@thomsonreuters.com>, "Prof. Axel Polleres" <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at>
Message-Id: <7DEF40B1-0222-4C3B-B3D2-DAF18ACAF182@w3.org>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>

there is an editorial mismatch...

The "scope" section says, listing the deliverables of the group:

• a Semantic Information Model: an abstract information model for permissions and obligations statements;
• vocabulary: a semantically precise vocabulary defining the information model and its elements;
• representation of the abstract information model in XML and in RDF/OWL;
• serialization of the RDF/OWL representation into JSON-LD.

Whereas the list of deliverables, in section 3, says:

• Additional Use Cases and Requirements document (NOTE)
• A technology-neutral permissions and obligations information model (Recommendation)
• A definition of the formal semantics of the information model (Note)
• A vocabulary for machine-readable expression of permissions and obligations (Recommendation)
• Mapping of the model and terms in XML (Recommendation)
• Mapping of the model and terms in RDF/OWL (Recommendation)
• Mapping of the model and terms in JSON (Recommendation)

The difference is in the JSON vs. JSON-LD section; the bullet list in the scope still reflects the previous versions.

Actually, instead of changing the scope section, it may be wiser to simply put a reference to section 3. This helps avoiding mistakes.

(Minor thingy: you should decide wether it is NOTE or Note:-)


> On 15 Dec 2015, at 17:09, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
> 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.
> --
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1

Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704

Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 16:47:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:35:51 UTC