paged view
In the table below, red  is in the WG decision column indicates that the Working Group didn't agree with the comment, green indicates that a it agreed with it, and yellow reflects an in-between situation.
In the "Commentor reply" column, red indicates the commenter objected to the WG resolution, green indicates approval, and yellow means the commenter didn't respond to the request for feedback.
| Commentor | Comment | Working Group decision | Commentor reply | 
  LC-2988
   Michael Steidl (IPTC)  <mdirector@iptc.org> (archived comment) | 
   ODRL Community, 
 
  
 
a comment on the Action vocabulary in the 2.1 draft - 
http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/2-0-common-vocabulary-constraint-draft 
-changes/ 
 
  
 
Since the first publication of this draft in summer we've received comments 
on the actions regarding changing/modifying existing assets and 
deriving/extracting from existing assets and creating new ones. 
 
  
 
Based on that I propose these changes: 
 
  
 
** Adding a new action as child of "use": 
 
-          Identifier: modify 
 
-          Semantics: The Assigner permits/prohibits the Assignee(s) to 
update existing content of the Asset. A new asset is not created by this 
action. 
 
-          Comment: This action will modify an asset which is typically 
updated from time to time without creating a new asset like a database. If 
the result from modifying the asset should be a new asset the actions derive 
or extract should be used. 
 
  
 
** Drop or deprecate the actions writeTo and appendTo and recommend using 
the action modify 
 
  
 
* Note on the proposed changes above: 
 
-          writeTo and appendTo are only about adding something to an asset 
but not about modifying it . 
 
-          . a modify action is missing 
 
-          It would be very hard to distinguish precisely modify, writeTo 
and appendTo therefore it is better to go ahead with the wider term. (E.g. 
is it realistic to permit modifying an asset but to prohibit that something 
is added by the modification?) 
 
  
 
** Change the Action "derive" by more precise semantics:  
 
-          Semantics: The Assigner permits/prohibits the Assignee(s) to 
create a new derivative Asset from this Asset and to edit or modify the 
derivative. 
 
-          Comment: A new asset is created and may have significant overlaps 
with the original Asset. To the derived Asset a next policy may be applied. 
 
  
 
** Change the Action "extract" by more precise semantics:  
 
-          Semantics: The Assigner permits/prohibits the Assignee(s) to 
extract parts of the Asset and to use it as a new Asset. 
 
-          Comment: A new asset is created and may have very little in 
common with the original Asset. To the extracted Asset a next policy may be 
applied. 
 
  
 
  
 
Thanks for considering this change, 
 
  
 
Michael 
 
  
 
Michael Steidl 
 
Managing Director of the IPTC [mdirector@iptc.org] 
 
International Press Telecommunications Council  
Web:  <http://www.iptc.org/> www.iptc.org - on Twitter 
<http://www.twitter.com/IPTC> @IPTC 
 
Business office address:  
 
25 Southampton Buildings, London WC2A 1AL, United Kingdom 
 
Registered in England, company no 101096 
  | 
   The proposal is accepted | 
  yes | 
|---|