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

Comment on the Open License Expression Working Group Charter (Draft)

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:49:02 +0900
Message-Id: <3543EE1B-435F-4B8A-803E-9E55B9366BCB@wu.ac.at>
Cc: Simon Steyskal <ssteyska@wu.ac.at>
To: public-ole-comment@w3.org
Dear all,

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. Would:

 Open Rights Expression Working Group


 Open Rights & Obligations Expression Working Group

or maybe 

 Open Terms & conditions Expression Working group

be some acceptable alternatives?

My worry with "License Expression" is the following: In terms of the scope and possible applications (also given the use cases mentioned at the TPAC breakout)
might be too narrow, for use cases beyond licences, whereas "Rights and Obligations" are actually what this is about on a more general level.
It may turn out - during the collection of use cases and requirements that the name is ok, but also that it might be too narrow, so the question is whether we should restrict it.
If the specs can later on be named accordingly, then the term "license" for the WG might even be ok, but I would like to not preclude upfront usage of the resulting standard.

Along these lines, it would make sense to also change the following:

• A technology-neutral license information model (Recommendation)
• A technology-neutral information model for rights and obligations (Recommendation)

• A vocabulary of license terms (Recommendation)
• A vocabulary for machine-readable expression of rights and obligations (Recommendation)

Another thing I would wish to see is (preferrably also rec-track but at *least* as a note) 
that provides a formal semantic model of the terms in the vocabulary/information model.
The reason being that the relation between terms should be expressed in a non-ambiguous, formal manner, where possible. With where possible, I mean that this might 
only be possible partially, depending on the tems defined, but what I really find missing in the current ODRL model is something beyond the natural text descriptions of terms, stating which terms imply each other, which ones contradict each other, etc.

We will further review the charter and make more comments once I discussed with Simon from my group, cc:ed, who has more insights on the ORDL CG work status.

best regards,

Prof. Dr. Axel Polleres
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 06:49:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 06:49:35 UTC