I omitted to include the following notes in my previous email. The notes describe the status of requirements gathering exercises: MPEG-21 issued the following in March 2001: ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 N4044: Reissue of the Call for Requirements for a Rights Data Dictionary and a Rights Expression Language.
http://www.cselt.it/mpeg/cfp/call_for_requirements (rights_language).htm The deadline for responses is *tomorrow* (COB 20010601). There is an ad hoc meeting of MPEG-21 in London on 7-8 June to discuss the responses. MPEG is keen to stress that requirements gathering is an ongoing process. Reuters is responding to the call. Open eBook Forum The OeBF Requirements Working Group has more-or-less finished putting in place online tools for gathering requirements from numerous sources. A process has been identified for turning raw requirements into normalised requirements based on common ontological terms. Potential sources for requirements have been identified and the process is getting underway for inviting contributions. W3C I have now heard back from Rigo Wenig at the W3C who confirms that no decision has yet been taken regarding the W3C's involvement or otherwise with DRM activities. He will be following up with the appropriate committee. In summary, most standards organisations working in DRM and related spaces are at the requirements gathering stage. At the very least, I suggest that an exchange of requirements would help to determine relative positions of the various bodies and serve to reduce replicated effort. /Dave. _ ______________________________________________________________ Dr David J. Parrott, Chartered Engineer. Chief Technology Office Reuters Limited, 85 Fleet Street, London EC4P 4AJ, UK. Direct Line: +44 (0)20 7542 9830, Fax: +44 (0)20 7542 8314 Email:
David.Parrott@reuters.com,
dparrott@acm.org ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our Internet site at
http://www.reuters.com Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.