[Odrl-version2] ODRL Common Vocab - Nancy Update

[Steven Rowat]

ri at odrl.net wrote:

> and we appreciate any suggestions to clarify/strengthen their definitions.

Very clear. I find the need for only one clarification that may have 
substantial changes; and a single small grammatical one.

Section 2.1

Extract, Semantics:
"The act of extracting (replicating) unchanged parts (or all) of the 
asset for reuse into another asset."

I'm not sure of this statement on two counts:
1. Isn't extracting "all" already defined by "Copy"? To avoid possible 
conflicts where 'copy' is already being given 
permissions/prohibitions, I suggest removing this. Otherwise, people 
can use 'Extract' or 'Copy' for the same action, that of copying the 
entire asset.
2. I expect that an argument for keeping 'all' in the Semantics here 
is that the intention is different: it's to re-use the extract in 
another asset, but I have just as much trouble with the "intention" 
statement itself.
We don't specify the 'intention' "for reuse into another asset" as 
possible/not possible in "Copy", but it could very well be the same.

In other words, I think "for reuse into another asset" actually 
belongs in the 'comment/example' field.

Thus Extract would become:

Semantics:
"The act of extracting (replicating) unchanged parts of the asset."

Comment/Example:
"For reuse along with, or within, another asset, or to stand alone."

I word the Example that way because I can envision people extracting a 
part that does any of those things:
a) gets used with another asset - say as a compilation, before or 
after other assets.
b) gets used inside another asset - say as someone taking a chorus 
from one song and putting it into another one, or taking a photo from 
a PDF file and adding it into another PDF page.
c) gets used alone by, say, extracting a photo from a PDF file and 
using it alone.

All three would need to be controlled by the Extract permissions 
prohibitions, if the author had different needs for each situation. 
Example: the owner of a music mp3 might permit an extraction it as a 
compilation of demos, but not to be used to create a new work by 
combining it with extracts of his/her other recordings.
Is this possible?


Minor grammatical:

Section 2.1:

In the "Move" comment/example, the word "to" should be deleted:
"After the asset has been moved, the original copy must [to] be deleted"
should be:
"After the asset has been moved, the original copy must be deleted"



> 
> (Next versions we will us "diffs" to see the changes)
> 
> Please note these two:
>  - Removed "View" action as could not see any difference with "Display"
>  - Removed "Range" constraint as we can now use Count with operators
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Renato Iannella
> ODRL Initiative
> http://odrl.net
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Odrl-version2 mailing list
> Odrl-version2 at odrl.net
> http://odrl.net/mailman/listinfo/odrl-version2_odrl.net
>