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