Re: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: Publishing Working Group Charter'

Hi Bob, Ben

thanks for your vote. A question on your comment:

> Additional comments about the proposal:
>   I suggest adding POE (Permissions & Obligations Expression) WG to the
> list of working groups to be coordinated with.
> My colleague, Ben Whittam-Smith (who is co-chair of POE-WG) says:
> "What a publisher using POE needs [in order] to attach their licenses to
> the assets within a publication is a way to identify – and probably
> additionally segment – those assets within the publication.
> I hope that this is within scope of the PUBL-WG. If so, then some liaison
> would be useful."

Although one does not exclude the other, I wonder whether it is not more appropriate to add the ODRL model (or vocab?) document as an official input document to the charter for the reasons you cite. (And, to be clear, I would certainly be in favour doing that.) Although, of course, one does not exclude the other, a liaison may not be all that meaningful because the POE Working group may essentially complete its technical development and will be close to completion by the time the Publishing Working Group will get up to speed.



Ivan Herman, W3C
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
mobile: +31-641044153

Received on Thursday, 27 April 2017 15:14:05 UTC