[Odrl-geospatial] Relationship between GeoDRM & ODRL [forwarded]

[Renato Iannella]

From: "Cardinale, Joseph D" <joseph.d.cardinale at boeing.com>
Date: 2 December 2004 03:32:22 GMT+10:00
To: <odrl-geospatial at odrl.net>
Cc: <Graham.Vowles at ordnancesurvey.co.uk>, <Roland.Wagner at isst.fhg.de>
Subject: [Odrl-geospatial] Relationship between GeoDRM & ODRL [resent]


Hello All,

I got the link to the discussion board from Elaine's email she sent
yesterday.  Below I will try and answer some of the questions you have
posed below regarding the OGC GeoDRM efforts.

Joe Cardinale
The Boeing Company
Space & Intelligence Systems
Mission Systems
703-270-6666
joseph.d.cardinale at boeing.com

From: spmorris at ncsu.edu
<http://lists.odrl.net/mailman/listinfo/odrl-geospatial>
Date: 1 December 2004 12:48:18 GMT+10:00
To: "ODRL Geospatial Profile Working Group" <odrl-geospatial at odrl.net
<http://lists.odrl.net/mailman/listinfo/odrl-geospatial> >
Subject: Re: [Odrl-geospatial] Relationship between GeoDRM & ODRL


Elaine,

> I will be attending the USGS  Policy
> meeting in Washington DC next week and I am looking forward to
speaking
> with Joe Cardinale (co-chair of OGC Geo DRM WG) and Tim Case (GeoData
> Alliance) who also will be in attendance. ...
> I'll be sure to write up a report of this meeting and share it with
> everyone.

That would be great.  I tried to join the GeoDRM listserv some time back
and got bounced (no OGC membership).  We've been trying to join the OGC
for some time now to engage on this and other issues of interest but
that
hasn't panned out yet.

I will be presenting the status of the OGC meeting in Chicago (9/04) and
giving everybody a sneak peek at the results of the GeoDRM survey I
hosted this past month for OGC.  This survey will be made available for
public consumption after it is presented to the OGC working group in
January.
>
> I do agree with Steve's assessment of geoDRM, I'm not so sure how well
> their work will apply to the kind of objects that we are dealing with
> in
> an educational setting.

Yeah, I'd like to get a better sense of the use cases GeoDRM will cover.

We are still defining the detailed use cases we will cover.  To date we
have about 11 or 12 use cases from our call for input.  They are in
various states of completion and cover the gamut for completeness.  We
hope to finish reviewing them and provide a better picture of one or two
discrete cases for the meeting in January.

Will it cover client interaction with a WMS or WFS or WCS or geocoding
service? -- most likely

Yes to the above

Will it cover download of a GML file from a server? -- possibly

Will it cover download of a shapefile from an FTP server?  -- not so
sure
about that

We are not specifying what the data should look like.

For this preservation project we are working on we are also dealing with
the issue of getting preservation use cases into these discussions.  If
these use cases don't get into the domain DRM standards then we may be
stuck with using the relevant domain DRM for 'use' elements in
combination
with some other possible generic 'preservation' DRM elements.

> I don't know of anyone who is doing this.  Although Mann Library at
> Cornell
> is committed to implementing METS for our geospatial repository, we
> have
> not decided what RE schema we plan to use.  If this working group can
> get
> a profile started with ODRL, I would like to use it.

Since we need a short term solution I think where we might be at is
trying
to shoehorn some things into METS DRM, documenting all the ways that
doesn't work, and use that to hopefully help inform ODRL
Geospatial/GeoDRM/preservation DRM efforts with the idea that the long
term solution lies there ... but then again maybe we'll find a way to
wait
things out a bit longer.

Steve