[rights-requirements] 02-12-03 Req Sc darft meeting minutes

Hello All:

Here are the minutes from the 02-12-03 
meeting. Please send me any changes.

 

Regards,

Hari

 

 

 

 

Requirements SC Meeting

Date: February 12, 2003

Time: 11:00 – 12:00 PM EDT

 

 

Roll 
Call

Hari Reddy, ContentGuard

Anne Anderson, Sun Microsystems

Aaron Burstein, Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy 
Clinic

Thomas DeMartini, ContentGuard

Cory Doctorow, Individual

Brad Gandee, ContentGuard

Brian LaMacchia, Microsoft

M. Paramasivam, Micorsoft

Harry Piccariello, ContentGuard

Lisa Rein, Individual

TJ Pannu, ContentGuard

 

Agenda:

1. Review open action 
items.

2. Discussion on meeting 
minutes format

3. Review Examples submitted 
by the Law Clinic

     1. 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-examples/200211/msg00004.html

     2. 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200301/msg00006.html

     with follow up by 
Brian:

     
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200301/msg00011.html

 

 

 

  
  

    
      
Action

    
      
Date 

    
      
Assigned

    
      
Description/Resolution

  

    
      
Issued

    
      
Status/

      
Date

  

    
      
1

    
      
10-02-02

    
      
Closed/
10-30-02

    
      
Lisa Rein

    
      
D: Provide reference to the comment that “most 
      rights expression languages to date have rights and permissions” to the 
      email list

      
R: Lisa stated that she was incorrect. Lisa will 
      provide list with information by 10-23-02.

  

    
      
2

    
      
10-02-02

    
      
Closed/ 10-16-02

    
      
Lisa Rein

    
      
D: Provide list of “10 words” to discuss on 
      email.

      
R: Will add to the list provided by Deirdre and 
      Aaron

  

    
      
3

    
      
10-02-02

    
      
Closed/

      
10-02-02

    
      
Thomas DeMartini

    
      
D: Provide the two clarifying questions resulting 
      from the email analysis by Thomas and Patrick

      
R: email sent to SC list on 
  10-02-02

  

    
      
4

    
      
10-02-02

    
      
Closed/

      
10-16-02

    
      
Deirdre Mulligan

    
      
D: Provide a list of terms to be defined on 
      email

      
R: Sent to list on 10-16…not needed in light of 
      Action 8.

  

    
      
5

    
      
10-02-02

    
      
Closed/ 10-02-02

    
      
Peter Schirling

    
      
D: Post comment on parallel systems to the email 
      list

      
R: John Erickson responded on email 
    list.

  

    
      
6

    
      
10-02-02

    
      
Closed/

      
10-16-02

    
      
Aaron Burstein

    
      
D: Provide information on schedule to the email 
      list.

      
R: Provided a synopsis of the OASIS TC Process. 
      There was misunderstanding by the group…several members were expecting a 
      suggested schedule which was not Aaron’s understanding.

  

    
      
7

    
      
10-02-02

    
      
Moved to Action 11

      
 

    
      
Deirdre Mulligan

    
      
D: Provide a list of issues regarding a “general 
      expression language” referencing the Sameulson submission to the email 
      list

      
R: Aaron sent response to the list on 10-11-02…SC 
      would like more information…Moved to Action 11

  

    
      
8

    
      
10-09-02

    
      
Closed/

      
10-15-02

    
      
Parama

    
      
D: Provide an Introduction to the Requirements 
      Document to clarify the scope and the terminology used in the Requirements 
      Document.

      
R: Parama sent Draft Introduction to the SC list on 
      10-15-02

  

    
      
9

    
      
10-16-02

    
      
Closed/

      
10-17-02

    
      
John Erickson

    
      
D: Provide input to Action 8 with respect to 
      permissions.

      
R: John made the addition and sent it to the list 
      on 10-17-02

  

    
      
10

    
      
10-16-02

    
      
Closed/

      
10-17-02

    
      
Hari Reddy

    
      
D: Update the Requirements Document upon receiving 
      final input from Action 8 and 9.

      
R: Done…updated as Requirements Rev 
    14.

  

    
      
11

    
      
10-23-02

    
      
Closed/
10-30-02

    
      
Deirdre Mulligan and Brian LaMacchia

    
      
D: Clarify expressions not mathematically 
      expressible in the current language

      
R: Will meet on 10-24 or 10-25 and report back to 
      the SC on 10-30-02. 

  

    
      
12

    
      
10-30-02

    
      
Closed/ 11-06092

    
      
Req SC

    
      
D: Submit any comments on the RLTC Requirements 
      Introduction by 11/6/02.

      
R: No comments were posted. No objections were 
      noted in the 11-06-02 call. SC has decided to agree on the 
      Introduction.

  

    
      
13

    
      
10-30-02

    
      
Closed

    
      
Deirdre Mulligan

    
      
Submit schedule proposal for reviewing examples or 
      use cases.

      
R: Examples submitted 01-15-03

  

    
      
14

    
      
11-06-02

    
      
Done

    
      
Req SC

    
      
Review the Requirements Document against the 
      Introduction. Comments are due before the 11-12-02 
  meeting.

  

    
      
15

    
      
11-06-02

    
      
Done

    
      
Hari Reddy

    
      
Update Requirements Document and send to SC to 
      review

  

    
      
16

    
      
11-20-02

    
      
Closed

    
      
Thomas DeMartini

    
      
Submit descriptive example to be placed into the 
      texts for SX15 and R25.

  

    
      
17

    
      
11-20-02

    
      
Closed

    
      
Aaron Burstein, Thomas DeMartini, Lisa Rein 
      

    
      
Submit changes to Introduction Paragraph 
      5.

  

    
      
18

    
      
12-04-02

    
      
Open

    
      
Hari Reddy, Bob Glushko

    
      
Develop a schedule for the Requirements 
      SC

 

 

 

Agenda:

  
Review open action items.

Hari: Have not been able to meet with Bob Glushko on Action item 18. 
Bob’s schedule is very tight.

 

  
Discussion on meeting minutes 
format

 

There was a discussion on condensing the meeting minutes. Hari explained 
that the minutes were never written to be verbatim transcripts but to try to 
capture as the important aspects of the conversation. Originally, we took 
condensed notes but were later accused of not taking proper notes. So for about 
6 months Hari has been taking more detailed notes, which the committee now feels 
may be too much. Basically this is no win situation for the meeting 
scribe.

 

From consensus of the committee, the notes will be written in a more 
condensed format.

 

 

The meeting times were also discussed. When the TC was formed, the 
membership decided to rotate the times to make the meeting times more palatable 
for people from various time zones. There was a suggestion to move the 
Requirements SC meeting to 5pm ET on Wednesdays which is the General Body time 
since the General Body is only meeting once every 4 weeks. Most people should 
have this time open. The week that there is a conflict, the Requirements SC 
would not meet.

 

The suggestion will be posted on the mailing list for comment.

 

 

3. Review Examples submitted by the Law Clinic

1.      
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-examples/200211/msg00004.html

 

Aaron pointed out that there were no new updates since the Nov 11, 2002 
posting.

 

Hari:  Alice tells Alice she 
can excerpt relevant portions of the musical recording.  Does she have permission to publish 
excerpts of the recordings?

 

Aaron: Yes

 

Hari:  Does it have to be 
streaming file?

Aaron:  No.  She creates a stream from some other 
source.

 

Hari:  She would obtain a 
music file.  What are the 
permissions as part of that?

 

Aaron:  I don’t know, the 
example doesn’t say.  I think the 
idea here is that the original file did not have a permission to create a stream 
of a portion of their original file, there was no explicit permission to do 
exactly that task.

 

Hari:  What do you mean by a 
stream?

 

Aaron:  A file put in 
streaming audio file.

 

Thomas:  Is it assumed Alice 
is going to make this stream with a piece of software.  So is that software the first one that 
needs to see that license?  Can we 
assume that software would trust Alice?

 

Aaron:  Yes

 

Thomas:  So the visitors to 
Alice’s site, they would also trust Alice?

 

Aaron:  I’m not sure. I guess 
I would have to think about that a little bit.  Why would the viewers of her site need 
to trust her?

 

Thomas:  There is a license 
that Alice tells the visitors on her site they are allowed to listen to the 
excerpts.  Why would she tell that 
if their software didn’t trust her in the first place?

 

Aaron:  I don’t know 
why.  I guess you could tell them 
that.  There is a large gap between 
that and software that trusts Alice.

 

Thomas:  At least the 
software trusts Alice enough to tell them they can play the excerpts.

 

Aaron: ok 

 

Thomas:  Another general 
question.  Is the next set of 
examples meant to be in addition to these or to supercede this set?

 

Aaron:  They were in addition 
to.

 

Brian:  I thought these were 
to superceed.  The Nov 11 examples 
were nebulous and not crisp.  One of 
the things that happened, was the newer examples were crisper and more what the 
license issue is.  They were 
distilled from the originals.  I 
think that we were supposed to look at these later examples and turn them to the 
examples subcommittee to look at them. 

 

Hari:  
Deirdre was quite vocal about these not being sent to the committee.  

 

Aaron:  I agree with Brian, 
the second set of examples might be easier to go through. I don’t think we meant 
the second set to supercede these.

 

Hari:  When can we understand 
the first set of examples like we understand the second set?

 

Aaron: Is our goal to get the first set to the level of the second 
set?

 

Hari:  I thought we could 
review the first set.  We’ve only 
had some small discussions on this set.

 

Lisa requested more time to review the examples before sending them to 
the examples SC. The SC then started to review the second set of 
examples.

 

2. 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200301/msg00006.html

     
with follow up by Brian:

     http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200301/msg00011.html

 

Hari:  The first one was 
example on first sale.  Any 
questions people have on this example?  
(no comments)  There was a 
questions on communications and the use of the original license that was also 
raised by Brian.

 

Thomas:  Example 5, lending a 
borrowed object, there is a person A and person B and when Person A lends to B, 
they don’t notify the content holder and when person B lends to person 
C…

 

Brian:  My comments are about 
an earlier version of something sent by the Clinic.  If you look at example 1, step 4 says 
that the original copyright holder is not notified.  In an earlier draft, it says there is no 
use of the original license. There is an issue here…the way the examples were 
phrased, there was no communication requirement or no dependence on the first 
license and I went back and said did you mean A, or B or C.  They said there is no notification to 
the clearinghouse.

 

Brian:  The 
example implies a particular implementation scenario.  The fact that the first thing that is 
supposed to happen was that there was a declaration between A&B when one 
issues a license to B.  There was 
also desire on the part of the Clinic to not have the entire providence of the 
book reflected in the chain of licenses. So if it goes from A to B to C, but 
that CH wouldn’t know about the licenses from CH to A to B to C.  I am not sure that a) that is a 
realistic requirement in the electronic digital world and b) I’m not sure it’s 
mutually satisfiable that CH not be involved in the loop.  

 

Aaron:  You’re right in 
characterizing the links in the chain that we didn’t want to see.  I thought that what would come out of 
the examples was one way to do it.  
Maybe it doesn’t do it exactly as stated in the example but we could come 
to an approximation and see how close it gets. Whatever comes out of modeling it 
will be useful knowledge.

 

Brian:  There are a couple of 
different ways to model it.  
Depending on the secondary properties you want, you can model it in 
different ways.  Can we get 
agreement from people on the call that we understand my comments and Aaron’s 
comments.  Do we understand Ex. 
1?  Are there other issues outside 
of this?

 

Hari:  I think I share your 
concern that there are many ways to model this.  But it is the objective of this exercise 
to model it in one way.  Again, we 
don’t have a vision of what that system looks like and the other protocols that 
needs to be developed and so forth.

 

Aaron:  Brian posted a good 
question.  The example kind of has 
two themes to it.  One is that A 
transfers the right to B, A is cut out of the license and the second is the 
right holder did not need to be notified of A’s exercise.  Is there a way to model that so both 
conditions are mutually satisfied?

 

Thomas:  Is it acceptable to 
have a 3rd party to indicate which person is the owner of a 
particular copy?

 

Aaron:  Yes.

 

Brian:  That is one way to 
model it.  There are 2 separate 
things going on and we should be clear.  
How do we model a transfer or delegation and 2) how would one build a 
protocol around it that has the following privacy preserving properties.  It can be done with a third party, 
knowledge protocols, etc. I think the examples should focus on here’s how we 
model the delegation or transfer and then the protocol issue.  The protocol issue is out of the scope 
of our working group, but it’s important stuff.  Protocol issues are not in scope of our 
working group.  Our scope is the 
licensing format.  It’s not in our 
charter to design protocols.

 

There were no other comments on the first example.

 

It was also determined that the examples 2-6 were clarified with the 
discussion on example 1.

 

Discussion on Example 7:

Brian:  I 
believe I felt this was under-specified.  
I can have a copy in any format, but can only use it in one format at a 
time.  I have license saying I can 
put them in 3 or 4 formats, but only use it one at a time.  You can have also have something that 
implies you automatically have a right to upgrade to a higher quality.  You can express that in a license, you 
can say “I’m going to give you a right to obtain high quality video if you pay 
me $1, but I can also give you a high quality video by paying me 25 cents if you 
already have the right to the lower quality video.  

 

Aaron:  I think that strays a 
bit from the example we gave.  I 
think that something like a blanket conversation right is more along the lines 
of what we were talking about here.

 

Brian:  OK. 
Presumably the point was to identify a format that was the equivalent.  So you can move to format A, B & C 
whenever you want.  

 

Aaron:  I 
think what we went over with the first example, I’m sure there is some piece of 
software interpreting the license.  

 

Brian:  We can do it as a 
blanket format conversion.  At the 
end of the day, it becomes a set of the equivalent.  It becomes a right to call a format 
converter and gives certain parameters.

 

Aaron:  I think that sounds 
reasonable.

 

Brian:  Then 
you are showing these as variables.  
This can be a good motivator to show how these variables can show a small 
set or a big set.  

 

Hari:  Who can specify those 
variables?

 

Brian:  When you issue a 
license you can define what the set is, an instance of the variables, patterns 
come into play there.  You do it as 
something, by the guy who gets the license in the first place does it, you can 
say the person who purchases it gets a number of conversions, and there are a 
number of ways to come to it.  You 
say you have the right to put this into the following 4 formats, or you get to 
choose one format.

 

Aaron:  Yes, 
I think that’s a good approach.  I 
think ultimately we’ll have to look at who’s doing what question in any given 
license, but as a matter of finding a way to express this in a license, that 
sounds right.  

 

Thomas:  I have a question on 
the use of copy. You can have one copy sitting on a server somewhere.  Does it mean that copy sitting on the 
server can be used in 2 different ways, or that you only want there to be one 
use of any particular copy at the time?  
If you have 2 computers trying to use the same copy, only one can do it 
at one time?

 

Aaron:  We’re looking at how 
the principal is exercising rights.  
We’re looking at how the person is using the entity.  Using computers is not so much, that 
some servers have copies of the resource.

 

Thomas:  I’m a user, I have 2 
computers in front of me, and I have another in a room that is a server, and I’m 
going to listen to it on 2 computers at the same time, does that violate using 
one copy at the same time?

 

Aaron:  Yes, that would 
violate it.

 

Thomas:  How is the work 
identified?  There are many ways to 
identify work.  You can identify 
them by their title or title and author to be a unique identifier.  A unique identifier could be a hash of 
the file, title and author will be the same, but hash of the file will be 
different on every format.  Is it 
important to use one of those?

 

Aaron:  Good 
question.  I think that the example 
about format conversation, I think in our real-world conception, is title and 
author specification.  Let me think 
about that a little bit more, look through the examples and see which way is 
best approach and try to and point out where it’s important to point out how the 
work is specified.  

 

Meeting adjourned at 12:04PM