- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:52:11 +0000
- To: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>, Renato Iannella <renato@knowledgeflux.com>
- Cc: public-ole-comment@w3.org
Much as I like the name OPEL, I agree that we need to use a different name. And licences are too narrow. But, Renato, I think you have problems with using the word Rights? For me, Open Rights and Obligations seems right. Phil On 30/10/2015 06:13, Simon Steyskal wrote: >> What would you think of the “Open Policy Expression Language (OPEL) WG” ? > > may lead to conflicts with the car brand "OPEL" [1] ;) > I like it though.. > > [1] http://www.opel.com/ > > --- > DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal > Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna > > www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys > > Am 2015-10-30 06:18, schrieb Renato Iannella: >>> On 29 Oct 2015, at 4:49 PM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I have a small comment on the Charter Draft, resulting from the >>> Discussion at TPAC... >>> >>> The title: "Open License Expression Working Group" >>> >>> seems potentially too narrow to me, but maybe that can be clarified. >> >> What would you think of the “Open Policy Expression Language (OPEL) WG” ? >> >> Renato Iannella >> Head of Innovation and Emerging Technologies, KnowledgeFlux >> Level 7, 100 Edward St, Brisbane 4000 AUSTRALIA +61 4 1313 2206 > > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Monday, 9 November 2015 15:52:48 UTC