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
Rob
· Rights Language<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
· Trust
· Framework
· Metadata
· Trusted Metadata
· API
· '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
· Collaboration:
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
simultaneously
· Allow for content line of usage.
· Archiving and preservation of cultural heritage for future
generation
· 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