Naming the standard

There is a debate about the naming of our standard. Some of us would like to retain ODRL; others to continue with Permissions & Obligations Expression.

Naming things is always hard and frequently fraught. So we should take our time but solve this issue.

I suggest we debate this through the mailing list and then take a vote on the second call following the face-to-face at TPAC. That would be the call on October 10th.

I personally favour publishing a standard for Permissions & Obligations Expression. Why? Because it unambiguously describes the intent and purpose of the standard.

I don't believe that ODRL does this. It's the DR at the centre: Digital Rights. It's both too narrow and too broad.

Why's it too narrow? Because I'd like to express regulatory constraints (like data residency requirements) within the standard. But these aren't rights.

Why's it too broad? Because the whole issue of 'digital rights' has become conflated with the issue of enforcement. We don't need to look beyond the W3C to see the damage that issue can cause.

But it's worse. I regularly hear ODRL criticised for its weakness in enforcement. It's a common misconception that the 'DR' reference invites.

We were renamed Permissions & Obligations Expression by the W3C to avoid these issues and to keep us out of the DR bun-fight. Very wise I say. It's succeeded so far. Let's remain unambiguous: let's remain POE.

Over to you ...

Ben

________________________________

This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail and any attachments. Certain required legal entity disclosures can be accessed on our website.<http://site.thomsonreuters.com/site/disclosures/>