RE: Summary Report published

I am glad to weigh in with my notes, stripped of the source.
I do not know what of these remarks actually made it to the whiteboard

         Rights Language<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />




         Trusted Metadata


         'Do no harm' 

         Requirements Study 

          seamless end user experience

         survey and perhaps rights language, but MPEG is going into that
too and we should not duplicate.

        state that IP is fundamental to the Internet, add field to HTTP

        Rights Protocol

         Steer clear of copy protection.

         Architecture / under structure


o        MPEG, 

         Relation with XML packaging

         Dit declaration

o        <indecs>

         Take a look at Glossary in RDF

         Work Groups 

        in signatures, work with experts, IETF

        something similar to P3P, and link to that.

         Access Rights

        survey of legal aspects, gray areas.

        Couple access rights to privacy rights

        do interest group to canvas interests in society

        expressing rights ontologies in RDF. 

        express all of technology, legal aspects, business models

        be generic towards data types and types of delivery (reformulated
as avoid eyes and ears focus)

         Patent and DRM

        go beyond scope of the web 

        take into account for content coming from different sources

        Allow for content line of usage.

        Archiving and preservation of cultural heritage for future

        consider difference between mgt of digital rights and digital mgt
of rights.

        : look at patent rights 

o        what do you mean by that? 

o        should be expressable

o        that is out of scope.

o        MPEG does something here 

         integrity of the content, authentication

         human rights (not infringing), international jurisdiction

Received on Thursday, 10 May 2001 00:27:01 UTC