MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Public as responders: Royalties
Thanks, Carl,
The Mime Type or SOAP with attachments routes are what I would
propose after a discussion of the issue as presented by PPW first. So
I agree with you wholeheartedly, and I think that what we should
consider is still to move forward and go into public review, which is
a process that carries enough weight that, given adequate
notification, the TV people can get their needs addressed on the
basis that is best for all concerned.
Ciao,
Rex
At 10:33 AM -0600 10/9/03, Carl Reed wrote:
>On the issue of royalties . . . in a way this emerging discussion sounds
>very similar to discussions that occurred for a period of time in the IETF
>GeoPRIV Working Group. This group is concerned with privacy and location
>information in the mobile world. For a period of time they gnashed their
>teeth on trying to address all the possible implications of the various
>privacy laws around the world and thought perhaps that they could define
>some level of privacy policy. While this provided them a level of
>understanding regarding requirements for privacy and location it got them no
>closer to a specification solution. So they decided to step back one level
>of abstraction and have now defined a draft specification for encoding
>privacy rules as part of a payload (could be DHCP) in the Internet world.
>What this means is that they removed themselves from the legal and policy
>issues surrounding privacy and moved into an environment in which the
>application worries about all of this and is responsible for defining the
>privacy rules. In this way, the spec does not concern itself with a nations
>or organizations specific privacy policies.
>
>Also, in the OGC we have a similar situation. Many producers of geospatial
>information require pay for use. So how can we provide seamless access in an
>interoperable world of geospatial information sharing - such as in an
>emergency response situation? There are definitely royalty, copyright,
>legal, and payment issues. On thing we discovered is that we do not try to
>solve the royalty/copyright issue at the data access interface or payload
>level. This is silliness. Perhaps more importantly what we discovered is
>that not only do we have technical interoperability issues but also
>institutional and political interoperability issues. These two latter
>interoperability issues are related to but are independent of the actual
>interface specification or payload specification standard. The institutional
>and political issues of data sharing need to be ironed out by the
>constituents BEFORE an Emergency event occurs. In effect, the constituents
>need to have some level of "contract" that enables full and complete sharing
>of public, private, for fee, or free spatial data.
>
>So, I might suggest that 1.) the CAP interface/payload specification needs
>slots (MIME?) to accommodate the ability to reference something like an
>MPEG-4 but 2.) the actual requirements for dealing with royalty and
>copyright and for fee should be handled at the application level and is
>therefore 3.) not at the CAP spec level.
>
>Sorry for the long missive - I am usually short and blunt :-)
>
>Carl
>
>