From jaime.delgado at upf.edu Thu Nov 11 00:01:35 2004 From: jaime.delgado at upf.edu (Jaime Delgado) Date: Sat Jun 2 13:28:04 2007 Subject: [Odrl-version2] DMAG-UPF comments on ODRL 2.0 Requirements Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20041110135126.02d93540@pop.upf.edu> Dear Colleagues, Here you are a few comments on the ODRL 2.0 Requirements from our side. I am including them as plain text (complemented with the attached JPG figure). To facilitate reading, I am also attaching a Word document with everything. Best regards, Jaime Delgado. =============================== DMAG-UPF comments on ODRL 2.0 Requirements Jaime Delgado, Roberto Garc?a, Jos? Prados, Eva Rodr?guez November 2004 Comment 1 Requirement 1.3 says ?ODRL requires the additional expressiveness to the respective status information? and there is an example, where if the customer has played a ring tone already 10 times, this information is needed in the ODRL expressions. We think that this status information, for example the number of times that a user exercises a right, does not have to be included in an ODRL expression. ODRL should be a language to express rights, but not a language to express status information, that should be an implementation issue. If we represent this type of status information in a license, then it will be necessary to access to the license and to modify it every time the user exercises a right. On the other hand, if we allow local modifications of a license, we will be leaving an open door to a future fraudulent use. A solution could be that every time a license must be modified, it should be necessary to revoke it and to request a new one. Comment 2 During the last months we have been in contact with some content providers and others companies, in the context of the AXMEDIS European project in which we are working now, and we would like to propose a case that could be interesting to consider in ODRL 2.0: - A condition expressed in an ODRL License about the possibility of exercising a right over a resource can be started in a certain and ?static? moment, as it could be the moment of generating a license or a certain date; but it could be also started in a ?dynamic? moment, as it could be the first time in which the user exercises that right over the resource. For example: A user can play a certain song so many times as he wants, but only five days after the first time he played it. Comment 3 It could be interesting to consider if it is necessary to include rules in ODRL 2.0 (or if this is only an implementation issue) about how to handle identification of the original creator of a work. One example could be to restrict the use of specific rights, such as Adapt or Create, based on the use of this information (for example, by forcing to include the identification of the orginal creator in the new resource). Comment 4 Include an ODRL representation in RDF; i.e., a better specification of the ODRL semantics could be achieved by using ontologies simply expressed in RDF. Based on our current work on ODRL and MPEG-21 ontologies generated from the original XMLSchemas, we include an example to show how this ODRL-RDF mapping could work. We present first an XML version, and then its RDF equivalent. It should be mentioned that this RDF has been generated automatically. Finally, a graphical view of the RDF tree is given. The RDF graph represents the same tree as the XML specification, but it also includes information about the complexTypes of the XMLSchema. In this way, ontologies and rule languages (such as RuleML or SWRL ) could be used to define the semantics of the language (one of your requirements) in an easily implementable way. Example XML specification doi:/voucher/383838383 The Voucher for XML: The Movie http://example.com/odrl/383838383.xml doi:0.9999999/video/383838383 XML: The Movie x500:c=IT;o=Registry;cn=MassimoCanale 75 x500:c=IT;o=Registry;cn=SimonaCanale 25 x500:c=IT;o=Registry;cn=MariaCanale 10 30 1000.00 90.0 5000.00 Example equivalent RDF specification ]> 5000.00 90.0 1000.00 30 75 x500:c=IT;o=Registry;cn=MassimoCanale XML: The Movie doi:0.9999999/video/383838383 10 x500:c=IT;o=Registry;cn=MariaCanale 25 x500:c=IT;o=Registry;cn=SimonaCanale The Voucher for XML: The Movie http://example.com/odrl/383838383.xml doi:/voucher/383838383 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DMAGCommentsODRL2-0RequirementsNov04.doc Type: application/msword Size: 167936 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.odrl.net/pipermail/odrl-version2/attachments/20041110/7917f82e/DMAGCommentsODRL2-0RequirementsNov04.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: video-scenario.rdf.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 142335 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.odrl.net/pipermail/odrl-version2/attachments/20041110/7917f82e/video-scenario.rdf.jpg From renato at odrl.net Tue Nov 16 17:18:17 2004 From: renato at odrl.net (Renato Iannella) Date: Sat Jun 2 13:28:04 2007 Subject: [Odrl-version2] DMAG-UPF comments on ODRL 2.0 Requirements In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20041110135126.02d93540@pop.upf.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20041110135126.02d93540@pop.upf.edu> Message-ID: <4DFC3BFD-3797-11D9-8334-00306541C018@odrl.net> Thanks Jaime (et al) for you comments. Some followup remarks: Comment 1 - Status Information I agree that we are getting close to the implementation level, however, consider the case of exporting content (from DRM system A to B) where there is a 10-use license and you have already used 5 of them. When the user (on a trusted client) exports the content, the license must say "5" and not "10" in the count constraint. I think the key is that the client is trusted. If it is trusted, then it should be able to re-write the license information (for cases like export). However, if this is not the case (and ODRL can make no assumptions on the trustworthiness of clients) then it may not be feasible. Comment 2 - first time constraint This is almost like a "special" constraint on the license itself. Once any of the permissions are used/started, then you have X days (or whatever) to complete the usages. Comment 3 - content id You could include the id of the creator in the asset . Then such permissions as could be constrained to 's with the same id. Comment 4 - RDF Model I think we need the normative model in UML, but can have expressions in other models, such as RDF. (My main concern over just RDF is the lack of commercial tools to parse/validate RDF/XML and RDF Schemas.) We are keenly interested in the "better specification of ODRL semantics" as this is a core requirement. Are there any "real-world" examples of defining such formalised semantics in RDF(OWL?) ? The auto-convert of XML to RDF/XML seems OK. I assume that what you are really doing is explicitly exposing the dataTypes in the instance document now? (A small note, as RDF does not like attributes, you need to convert the currency attribute to a property of the Payment...) Cheers Renato Iannella http://renato.iannella.it From renato at odrl.net Tue Nov 23 12:52:16 2004 From: renato at odrl.net (Renato Iannella) Date: Sat Jun 2 13:28:04 2007 Subject: [Odrl-version2] Fwd: ODRL Version 2 Requirements Message-ID: <4D4DCE14-3CF2-11D9-A6D6-00306541C018@odrl.net> Begin forwarded message: From: Stephen Downes Date: 23 November 2004 14:38:09 GMT+10:00 To: odrl-version2@odrl.net Subject: ODRL Version 2 Requirements I'm very sorry for having taken so long to respond - I have been so busy... I have quickly reviewed the first draft of the requirements document; my intention is to provide detailed comments later, but my first impressions are favorable. The 'wildcard' nor 'not' requirement wasn't my suggestion, but at the meeting I expressed support for the idea. This I believe was captured well in the requirements document, allowing users to toggle between 'everything not specified is prohibited, with the following being allowed' and 'everything not specified is allowed, with the following being prohibited' The major thing I was proposing at the meeting, which I do believe was also captured by the requirements, was the ability to create what I have called a rights 'model' where can apply to one or more separate resources. In this respect, it may interest you to read of the OAI rights expression proposal just released. Please see http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/guidelines-rights.htm I draw your attention exspecially to this: "A rights expression can be associated with the metadata by including an *optional* || package in an || container. This specification defines an XML schema to which such || packages *must* conform. The schema allows for actual rights expressions to be specified in-line within a || package, or by-reference via a URL of a network-accessible rights expression." It is the 'by-reference' mechanism that the rights model is intended to support, so that it is not necessary to have a separate rights expression for each resource. I also noted in the requirements the recommendation that the specification be modular, or in other words, have a simple and easy-to-apply core with the capacity for accepting extensions. I believe that simplicity will be important to encouraging adoption, and thus I would strongly support this. -- __________________________________________________________________ Stephen Downes ~ Senior Researcher ~ E-Learning Research Group National Research Council Canada ~ Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada http://www.downes.ca ~ stephen@downes.ca __________________________________________________________________ From Susanne.Guth at gmx.net Tue Nov 23 16:27:39 2004 From: Susanne.Guth at gmx.net (Susanne Guth) Date: Sat Jun 2 13:28:04 2007 Subject: [Odrl-version2] More Requirements References: Message-ID: <27761.1101187659@www52.gmx.net> Steven. I am currently updating the requirements document and I would like to name and acknowledge all people that supported us in creating the document. Do you want any affiliation behind your name? Susanne -- Susanne Guth susanne@odrl.net ODRL Initiative http://odrl.net/ NEU +++ DSL Komplett von GMX +++ http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl GMX DSL-Netzanschluss + Tarif zum supergünstigen Komplett-Preis! From renato at odrl.net Tue Nov 23 16:47:02 2004 From: renato at odrl.net (Renato Iannella) Date: Sat Jun 2 13:28:04 2007 Subject: [Odrl-version2] RE: ODRL Version 2 Requirements Message-ID: <193DA2C4-3D13-11D9-A6D6-00306541C018@odrl.net> On 23 Nov 2004, at 11:52, Stephen Downes wrote: > It is the 'by-reference' mechanism that the rights model is intended to > support, so that it is not necessary to have a separate rights > expression for each resource. Stephen, thanks for your feedback/comments. Just to clarify this requirement - like Creative Commons - there are a number of predefined licenses that have well known URI identifiers. We can do this in ODRL today, *except* that the would have to be omitted as you do not know this - the "link" between the two would come when the navigation occurs *from* the asset to the rights expression. The V2 model/semantics would need to make this clear. Cheers Renato Iannella ODRL Initiative http://odrl.net From Susanne.Guth at gmx.net Wed Nov 24 13:56:10 2004 From: Susanne.Guth at gmx.net (Susanne Guth) Date: Sat Jun 2 13:28:04 2007 Subject: [Odrl-version2] New ODRL Requirements Document Message-ID: <27511.1101264970@www52.gmx.net> Dear ODRL Community! Thank you for all the valuable input to the ODRL Version 2 Requirements Document. Please find the updated document "ODRL Initiative Working Draft: 24th November 2004" at http://odrl.net/2.0/WD-v2req-20041124.html The requirements document is an important document for the further development of ODRL. Therefore, any comments on the document are extremely valuable for the ODRL Initiative. Please send your thoughts, critics, technical comments, new requirements, or other notes to odrl-version2 interest list (please find list details at http://odrl.net/2.0/) until December 15th, 2004 This is the last call for comments on the requirements document. For those of you who have already read the first draft, the change history will help you reading the new document. Any comment is appreciated. Cheers Susanne Guth Renato Iannella **************** -- Susanne Guth susanne@odrl.net ODRL Initiative http://odrl.net/ Geschenkt: 3 Monate GMX ProMail + 3 Top-Spielfilme auf DVD ++ Jetzt kostenlos testen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ++ From renato at odrl.net Fri Nov 26 12:19:51 2004 From: renato at odrl.net (Renato Iannella) Date: Sat Jun 2 13:28:04 2007 Subject: [Odrl-version2] CFP: Second International ODRL Workshop 2005 Message-ID: <459C46B6-3F49-11D9-8565-00306541C018@odrl.net> ============================================= Second International ODRL Workshop **** Call for Participation **** Lisbon, Portugal, 7-8 July 2005 ============================================= The Second International ODRL Workshop continues from the successful First Workshop by bringing together people from research and industry to share current experiences and discuss the continuing development of the language to ensure its future success and strength. The ODRL language expresses rights information used in the open creative industries and commercial Digital Rights Management (DRM) sector. The Workshop will be held in Lisbon, Portugal from Thursday 7 July to Friday 8 July 2005. Submissions are now being sought that cover implementations, research, deployment, and profile extensions of ODRL across all industries and communities. Submissions are also invited from complementary research in the field of Rights Expression Languages and their impact on the DRM and creative sector. The Call for Participation includes the details of the submission requirements for the Workshop: Further information can be obtained from the Program Chairs: - Susanne Guth, Vienna University of Economics and BA, Austria - Carlos Serrao, Adetti, Portugal Email: We look forward to seeing you in Lisbon in 2005. Renato Iannella General Chair 2nd International ODRL Workshop From renato at odrl.net Mon Nov 29 14:54:02 2004 From: renato at odrl.net (Renato Iannella) Date: Sat Jun 2 13:28:04 2007 Subject: [Odrl-version2] Document Strategy Message-ID: <4EC7927F-41BA-11D9-AF2E-00306541C018@odrl.net> We propose to develop a number of normative documents for Version 2.0 of ODRL. Briefly, these include: 1) ODRL - V2.0: Requirements (as we have now) 2) ODRL - V2.0: Model 3) ODRL - V2.0: Model - XML Encoding 4) ODRL - V2.0: Core Dictionary 5) ODRL - V2.0: Core Dictionary - XML Encoding This will give us a bit more flexibility, and allow alternate specifications to be developed (eg an RDF/XML Binding for the Model) The documents will be developed in parallel as there will be some dependencies between them that we may need to address. Are there any comments/feedback on this plan? We are also requesting volunteers (editors) for these documents... Cheers Renato Iannella ODRL Initiative http://odrl.net