[Odrl-version2] Make it Simpler?

[Steven Rowat]

Hi

Susanne wrote:

>this is a viable alternative for me to the ODRLv2 document structure 
>we currently have. Any other comments of the ODRL community members?

I agree. The simpler the core is the better. Based on various 
arguments, it may be that how simple we can make the core will decide 
whether or not ODRL gets uniformly adopted.

As I said in my (ironically) too complex earlier comments, I'd go so 
far as to make the core be only the required definitions for Party, 
Asset, and Party's initial Intentions about the use of their Asset 
(i.e., pre-negotiation).

I sent a rewritten detailed explanation of this position to the three 
authors of the "The Problem with Rights Expression Languages" study, 
and one of the authors (Greg Heileman) has responded with further 
comments and a copy of another study they are publishing (which I 
have yet to read).

I won't post my e-mail I sent them here since my suggestions in it 
are mostly contained within the longer posts I wrote on this subject 
last week. (However the version I sent them is reordered and more 
concise, so if anyone is interested please let me know and I'll send 
backchannel.)

I have Greg's permission to quote from his response; these parts seem 
like they may be of interest:

>"...One of the most important issues in [Pramod's] work is precisely 
>what you mention - how simple should the core be?  The trade-offs 
>between capability and complexity need to be carefully studied, and 
>how much of the complexity can be pushed into the middleware becomes 
>an important issue.
>
>Regarding middleware, I agree with you that it should furnish a lot 
>of the DRM capabilities.  I would also like to point out that many 
>services that have historically been called middleware are free, 
>e.g., many messaging services, ODBC, etc.  We're also of the opinion 
>that standards should be defined in this area that are open.  The 
>services that make use of the middleware should be able to operate 
>according to different business models, but the infrastructure of 
>the middleware should be freely available - perhaps even an integral 
>part of the future Internet.
>
>
>It is theoretically possible to "chunk" ODRL or XrML into parts - 
>some that would be part of a core REL, and others that would be 
>identified as middleware or even application-level parts.  From our 
>perspective, it seems that ODRL is better suited for this than XrML. 
> Or perhaps we can define a core, and then show how it maps to 
>specific parts of ODRL and XrML - this might get around some of the 
>standards issues you mention.   
>
>In any event, I look forward to continued discussion with you on this topic. "
>


In a subsequent email Greg said he may join this group; I hope he does!


Best Regards,


Steven Rowat









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.odrl.net/pipermail/odrl-version2/attachments/20070206/099eeadc/attachment.html