No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1356 - Release Date: 2/4/2008 16:14

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1356 - Release Date: 2/4/2008 16:14

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1356 - Release Date: 2/4/2008 16:14

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1356 - Release Date: 2/4/2008 16:14

Marc,

"Marc Gauvin" <mgauvin@sdae.net> writes:

> Your statement can be summed up by the fact that you believe that
> fixed definitions of roles are inflexible because users can take
> on any role on a case by case basis.

I don't think that your approach of misquoting what I wrote and then
claiming that it's flawed will lead to anything useful.

I wrote:

> > A copyright ontology should not maintain fixed definitions of
> > Value-Chain Users, because the role of a Value-chain user varies
> > from case to case and depends on the Actions he performs on the
> > entities defined in a Creation Model.

For the sake of simplicity I strip down my initial statement into
three simpler statements:

(1) The role of a Value-chain user varies from case to case.

AND

(2) [the role of a Value-chain user] depends on the Actions he
performs on the entities defined in a Creation Model.

FROM THIS IT FOLLOWS THAT

(3) A copyright ontology should not maintain fixed definitions of
Value-Chain Users

If you disagree with statement (1) or (2) or conclusion (3) please
tell me why. This should enable you to explain why you believe that my
statement is flawed.

yours sincerely,
Martin Springer
--
Martin Springer GPG-ID 1024D/23058565
Husemannstrasse 7 PHONE +49.30.41717658
D-10435 Berlin MOBILE +49.172.3036702

Dear all,

Sorry, I'm getting lost...

1. My perception, and I think that also Martin's, is that roles can be
deduced from actions so, as we are talking about requirements, they do
not constitute an a priori requirement, just a design approach.

2. Please, might someone restate the scenario that should help us
clarify requirements? My first impression is that given a clear set of
actions that should be considered and governed, reversing revenue flow
is just a matter of on which actions do we put
conditions/obligations...

Best,

--
Roberto García
http://rhizomik.net/~roberto

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Rubén Tous <rtous@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> if an explicit role name is equivalent (redundant) to a graph of actions
> described using the ontology resources, as Roberto and Martin defend, I
> would ask you the following questions:
>
>
>
> 1)      Why not making this equivalence explicit in the ontology? Keeping
> the explicit role name for practical issues while guaranteeing consistency?
>
>
>
> 2)      Why not consider that other roles, other than those which can be
> described using graphs of already defined actions, could be needed?
>
>
>
> Independently of the technical consequences, in some way my intuition says
> to me that having explicit roles to which refer to will have practical
> advantages for the future ontology users.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Ruben
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Martin Springer
> To: mvco@yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [mvco] MVCO
>
>
>
>
> "Marc Gauvin" <mgauvin@...> writes:
>
> > It is simple enough we can support as many roles that are needed
> > but they need to be explicitly defined.
>
> Why need roles to be explicitely defined?
>
> Roberto Garcia wrote:
>
> > > There is no need to define a set of roles in the ontology because
> > > you are then making them explicit and there is no need to do that.
>
> I second Roberto's statement.
>
> > I don't see any point in implicit and/or loose definitions and as
> > I said earlier it is not enough to define the roles by the
> > actions they take you need to the relationships between roles and
> > roles and IP Entity types.
>
> Why do you need the relationships between roles and IP Entity types?
>
> Roberto Garcia wrote:
>
> > > If the ontology is modelled using an action-oriented approach
> > > (like RDD and, as far as I know, RRD), the roles are already
> > > implicit. A copy is performed by an agent, implicitly a copier, a
> > > perform is played by an agent, implicitly the performer. It might
> > > by the same entity who is the agent in both actions, and the role
> > > is a function of the action where the agent is participating.
>
> I second Roberto's statement.
>
> > > Making this explicit, i.e. introducing a set of roles, makes the
> > > ontology more rigid as you are putting more constraints than it
> > > is required and you should keep track and guarantee consistency
> > > as you add more actions/roles.
>
> The sampling example in my previous posting illustrates that a too
> rigid ontology prevents certain use cases.
>
> How would you express the sampling use case with your ontology?
>
> yours sincerely,
> Martin Springer
> --
> Martin Springer GPG-ID 1024D/23058565
> Husemannstrasse 7 PHONE +49.30.41717658
> D-10435 Berlin MOBILE +49.172.3036702
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Martin Springer

To: mvco@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:42 PM

Subject: Re: [mvco] MVCO

"Marc Gauvin" <mgauvin@sdae.net> writes:

> It is simple enough we can support as many roles that are needed
> but they need to be explicitly defined.

Why need roles to be explicitely defined?

Roberto Garcia wrote:

> > There is no need to define a set of roles in the ontology because
> > you are then making them explicit and there is no need to do that.

I second Roberto's statement.

> I don't see any point in implicit and/or loose definitions and as
> I said earlier it is not enough to define the roles by the
> actions they take you need to the relationships between roles and
> roles and IP Entity types.

Why do you need the relationships between roles and IP Entity types?

Roberto Garcia wrote:

> > If the ontology is modelled using an action-oriented approach
> > (like RDD and, as far as I know, RRD), the roles are already
> > implicit. A copy is performed by an agent, implicitly a copier, a
> > perform is played by an agent, implicitly the performer. It might
> > by the same entity who is the agent in both actions, and the role
> > is a function of the action where the agent is participating.

I second Roberto's statement.

> > Making this explicit, i.e. introducing a set of roles, makes the
> > ontology more rigid as you are putting more constraints than it
> > is required and you should keep track and guarantee consistency
> > as you add more actions/roles.

The sampling example in my previous posting illustrates that a too
rigid ontology prevents certain use cases.

How would you express the sampling use case with your ontology?

yours sincerely,
Martin Springer
--
Martin Springer GPG-ID 1024D/23058565
Husemannstrasse 7 PHONE +49.30.41717658
D-10435 Berlin MOBILE +49.172.3036702

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 17:37

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1356 - Release Date: 2/4/2008 16:14

"Marc Gauvin" <mgauvin@...> writes:

>    It is simple enough we can support as many roles that are needed
>    but they need to be explicitly defined.

Why need roles to be explicitely defined?

Roberto Garcia wrote:

> > There is no need to define a set of roles in the ontology because
> > you are then making them explicit and there is no need to do that.

I second Roberto's statement.

>    I don't see any point in implicit and/or loose definitions and as
>    I said earlier it is not enough to define the roles by the
>    actions they take you need to the relationships between roles and
>    roles and IP Entity types.

Why do you need the relationships between roles and IP Entity types?

Roberto Garcia wrote:

> > If the ontology is modelled using an action-oriented approach
> > (like RDD and, as far as I know, RRD), the roles are already
> > implicit. A copy is performed by an agent, implicitly a copier, a
> > perform is played by an agent, implicitly the performer. It might
> > by the same entity who is the agent in both actions, and the role
> > is a function of the action where the agent is participating.

I second Roberto's statement.

> >  Making this explicit, i.e. introducing a set of roles, makes the
> >  ontology more rigid as you are putting more constraints than it
> >  is required and you should keep track and guarantee consistency
> >  as you add more actions/roles.

The sampling example in my previous posting illustrates that a too
rigid ontology prevents certain use cases.

How would you express the sampling use case with your ontology?

yours sincerely,
Martin Springer
--
Martin Springer         GPG-ID  1024D/23058565
Husemannstrasse 7       PHONE  +49.30.41717658
D-10435 Berlin          MOBILE +49.172.3036702

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 17:37

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 17:37

Marc,

"Marc Gauvin" <mgauvin@...> writes:

>    Your statement can be summed up by the fact that you believe that
>    fixed definitions of roles are inflexible because users can take
>    on any role on a case by case basis.

I don't think that your approach of misquoting what I wrote and then
claiming that it's flawed will lead to anything useful.

I wrote:

>  > A copyright ontology should not maintain fixed definitions of
>  > Value-Chain Users, because the role of a Value-chain user varies
>  > from case to case and depends on the Actions he performs on the
>  > entities defined in a Creation Model.

For the sake of simplicity I strip down my initial statement into
three simpler statements:

  (1) The role of a Value-chain user varies from case to case.

      AND

  (2) [the role of a Value-chain user] depends on the Actions he
      performs on the entities defined in a Creation Model.

      FROM THIS IT FOLLOWS THAT

  (3) A copyright ontology should not maintain fixed definitions of
      Value-Chain Users

If you disagree with statement (1) or (2) or conclusion (3) please
tell me why. This should enable you to explain why you believe that my
statement is flawed.

yours sincerely,
Martin Springer
--
Martin Springer         GPG-ID  1024D/23058565
Husemannstrasse 7       PHONE  +49.30.41717658
D-10435 Berlin          MOBILE +49.172.3036702

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 17:37

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 17:37

"Marc Gauvin" <mgauvin@...> writes:

>    As Martin's statement earlier had a logical flaw i.e. claiming
>    that the definition of the Roles are inflexible because a user
>    can perform any one and/or number of roles on a case by case
>    basis [...]

Huh - did I really claim this?

Is my statement based on a logical flaw?

Let's check for the logical flaw:

>    On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Marc Gauvin <mgauvin@...> wrote:

>    > You wrote:
>    >
>    > In my opinion Requirement 1 is wrong anyway. A copyright
>    > ontology should not maintain fixed definitions of Value-Chain
>    > Users, because the role of a Value-chain user varies from case
>    > to case and depends on the Actions he performs on the entities
>    > defined in a Creation Model.

Here we are.

Note the existence of the operator *not* between my expressions
'copyright ontology' and 'maintain fixed definitions'.

>    > Your logic fails in the paragraph above:
>    >
>    > First you say that the ontology maintains fixed definitions of
>    > Value-Chain Users which is true and necessary.

Note that Marc Gauvin's interpretation of my statement is missing the
*not*.

It seems that Marc accuses me of a logical flaw because he missed a
word.

Never mind, this can happen in the heat of the moment.

So let's check if I claimed that "the definition of the Roles are
inflexible because a user can perform any one and/or number of roles
on a case by case basis".

I wrote:

> > > In my opinion Requirement 1 is wrong anyway. A copyright
> > > ontology should not maintain fixed definitions of Value-Chain
> > > Users, because the role of a Value-chain user varies from case
> > > to case and depends on the Actions he performs on the entities
> > > defined in a Creation Model.
> > >
> > > I believe that the term 'Role' in Requirement 1 makes the
> > > proposed ontology quite unflexible.

Obviously I did not claim that the definition of Roles is inflexible -
this claim would be utterly sensless.

Again, it seems that Marc missed the sense of what I wrote.

I am sorry that my modest thoughts about ontologies have caused a
misunderstanding.

All the more I am happy that my teacher Roberto has understood the
sense of my words and explained them for the sake of clarity:

    There is no need to define a set of roles in the ontology because
    you are then making them explicit and there is no need to do that.

I would like to propose that Marc Gauvin rereads Roberto's posting and
lets us know what he thinks.

yours sincerley,
Martin Springer
--
Martin Springer         GPG-ID  1024D/23058565
Husemannstrasse 7       PHONE  +49.30.41717658
D-10435 Berlin          MOBILE +49.172.3036702

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 17:37

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 17:37

Hi Martil, All,

What Martin is saying is that there is no need to define a set of
roles in the ontology because you are then making them explicit and
there is no need to do that. If the ontology is modelled using an
action-oriented approach (like RDD and, as far as I know, RRD), the
roles are already implicit. A copy is performed by an agent,
implicitly a copier, a perform is played by an agent, implicitly the
performer. It might by the same entity who is the agent in both
actions, and the role is a function of the action where the agent is
participating.

Making this explicit, i.e. introducing a set of roles, makes the
ontology more rigid as you are putting more constraints than it is
required and you should keep track and guarantee consistency as you
add more actions/roles.

Best,

--
Roberto García
http://rhizomik.net/~roberto


On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Marc Gauvin <mgauvin@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Martin, All,
>
>
> You wrote:
>
> In my opinion Requirement 1 is wrong anyway. A copyright ontology
> should not maintain fixed definitions of Value-Chain Users, because
> the role of a Value-chain user varies from case to case and depends on
> the Actions he performs on the entities defined in a Creation Model.
>
> Your logic fails in the paragraph above:
>
> First you say that the ontology maintains fixed definitions of Value-Chain
> Users which is true and necessary.  But then you imply that because users
> can adopt any of those roles from case to case there is inflexibility in the
> definitions.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
> ADVERTENCIA DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: La información contenida en este mensaje es
> confidencial. La posible información de carácter personal que pudiera
> contener este comunicado, se encuentra amparada en la LOPD 15/99. Si recibe
> este e-mail erróneamente rogamos nos lo reenvíe, lo elimine de todos sus
> archivos y se abstenga de utilizar, reproducir, alterar, archivar o
> comunicar a terceros el presente mensaje, todo ello bajo pena de incurrir en
> responsabilidades legales. El emisor no garantiza la integridad, rapidez o
> seguridad del presente correo, ni se responsabiliza de posibles perjuicios
> derivados de la captura, incorporaciones de virus o cualesquiera otras
> manipulaciones efectuadas por terceros.
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information transmitted in this message is
> confidential and only for the intended recipients. The possible information
> that this document could contain, related to personal and/or professional
> data is protected by Law. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
> inform the sender, delete it, and refrain from any reproduction, use,
> alteration, filing or communication to third parties. Any unauthorised use
> of the contents of this message is subject to incurring legal
> responsibilities and possible legal penalty. The sender does not guarantee
> the integrity, the accuracy, the swift delivery or the security of this
> e-mail transmission, and assumes no responsibility for any possible damage
> incurred through data capture, virus incorporation or any manipulation
> carried out by third parties.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ________________________________
>  De: mvco@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mvco@yahoogroups.com] En nombre de Martin
> Springer
> Enviado el: miércoles, 02 de abril de 2008 13:08
> Para: mvco@yahoogroups.com
> Asunto: Re: [mvco] MVCO
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Leonardo, Xin, All,
>
> "Leonardo Chiariglione" <leonardo@...> writes:
>
> > If the MVCO has to give the features of all actors, then I guess
> > that we do not have requirements for advertisers
>
> What do you mean with the "features of all actors"?
>
> The authors of the Input Document (REVISED Requirements for a Machine
> Readable Rights Ontology) proposed the term 'Role' - A defined set of
> actions and corresponding Conditions attributed to and required of a
> User.
>
> Requirement 1 for their proposed Machine Readable Rights Ontology
> says: It shall define a core set of terms common to any IP management
> [...] The Ontology shall maintain a basic core set of terms for: IP
> Entities, Actions and Rights, Roles.
>
> For my use case (end-users watching content) this could mean that the
> ontology should maintain definitions of Advertiser and Consumer.
>
> In my opinion Requirement 1 is wrong anyway. A copyright ontology
> should not maintain fixed definitions of Value-Chain Users, because
> the role of a Value-chain user varies from case to case and depends on
> the Actions he performs on the entities defined in a Creation Model.
>
> I believe that the term 'Role' in Requirement 1 makes the proposed
> ontology quite unflexible. Xin's answer to my use case might help to
> illustrate what I mean.
>
> "Wang, Xin" <xin.wang@...> writes:
>
> >> Commercials are content (instances of manifestations of works). The
> >> only difference between "non-commercial" and "commercial" content
> >> is the direction of the payment: end-users pay for watching the
> >> first type and are "being paid" for watching the second type of
> >> content.
> >
> > Not sure if that's the only difference. For instance, for
> > commercial-supported non-commercial content (like public TV),
> > end-users pay nothing. Also, more importantly, "commercial" content
> > is selected by its providers to "force" or "target" end-user to
> > watch, whereas "non-commercial" content is most time selected by
> > end-users themselves.
> >
> > I guess what I like to say is that consuming/distributing these two
> > types of content involves not just rights (to consume) but also
> > obligations (to consume): having rights to watch
> > commercial-supported non-commercial content for free may imply
> > bearing obligations to watch commercials.
>
> Assume three Users:
>
> - GBC, a public TV broadcaster, broadcasts a piece of
> commercial-supported non-commercial content which consists of
> commercial (c) and non-commercial (n) segments:
>
> {|nnnnnn|cc|nnnnnnn|ccc|nnnnnnn|cccc|nnn|}
>
> Figure: a piece of content
>
> - JOE, an End-user, wants to watch the full piece of content including
> the commercials
>
> - JAH, an End-user, wants to extract scenes for his documentary film
> project "weird haircuts and moustaches of the 1970ties".
>
> If DRM environment based on an ontology requires: only Users who first
> declare the Role of a Consumer can watch the content for free, JOE
> declares that he is a Consumer and then can watch the content.
>
> But what about JAH? He is not a Consumer. He is an artist who needs to
> sample scenes from television for the creation of his new Work.
>
> If JAH declares that he will take on the Role of a Creator he will not
> be able to extract non-commercial scenes, because as a consequence of
> accepting the license agreement he would bear the obligation to
> "consume" the complete content.
>
> A DRM environment could make sampling impossible, because licenses are
> not explicit about the sampling policy and because all 'copy' Actions
> are blocked by default, even if they are intended for private
> purposes.
>
> In the paper 'Promoting Music Sampling by Semantic Web-enhanced DRM
> tools' [1] Roberto Garcia and I proposed a different model for a
> copyright ontology which tackles this problem.
>
> I would be glad if the readers of this list would toy with our ideas
> before discussing an ontology which seems to oversimplify the
> relationships between Value-chain users.
>
> yours sincerley,
> Martin
>
> [1] http://rhizomik.net/content/roberto/papers/msrg-virtualgoods07.pdf
>
> > __________________________________________________________
> >
> > From: mvco@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mvco@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > Martin Springer
> > Sent: Tuesday, 01 April, 2008 10:30
> > To: mvco@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [mvco] MVCO
> >
> >
> > Leonardo,
> > "Leonardo Chiariglione" <leonardo@...> writes:
> > > Looking at the requirements document I have seen that we have a
> > > very detailed set of requirements for the "content" part,
> > > i.e. for what people produce, typically with the expectation of
> > > being remunerated.
> > >
> > > What about the other type of content that people produce, typically
> > > with the plan of remunerating others for end users to watch or hear?
> > Who produces content with the plan of remunerating others for
> > end-users to watch or hear?
> > Advertisers produce commercials with the plan of remunerating service
> > providers for end-users to watch or hear them.
> > > I believe that this type of content and the users handling it are
> > > important.
> > >
> > > Any opinion?
> > Commercials are content (instances of manifestations of works). The
> > only difference between "non-commercial" and "commercial" content is
> > the direction of the payment: end-users pay for watching the first
> > type and are "being paid" for watching the second type of content.
> > So if I have not completely misinterpreted your intervetion I don't
> > think that our Ontology is missing a requirement.
> > yours,
> > Martin
> >
> >
>
> --
> Martin Springer GPG-ID 1024D/23058565
> Husemannstrasse 7 PHONE +49.30.41717658
> D-10435 Berlin MOBILE +49.172.3036702
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 1/4/2008
> 17:37
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>  Checked by AVG.
>  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 1/4/2008
> 17:37
>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 17:37

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 17:37

Leonardo, Xin, All,

"Leonardo Chiariglione" <leonardo@...> writes:

>    If the MVCO has to give the features of all actors, then I guess
>    that we do not have requirements for advertisers

What do you mean with the "features of all actors"?

The authors of the Input Document (REVISED Requirements for a Machine
Readable Rights Ontology) proposed the term 'Role' - A defined set of
actions and corresponding Conditions attributed to and required of a
User.

Requirement 1 for their proposed Machine Readable Rights Ontology
says: It shall define a core set of terms common to any IP management
[...]  The Ontology shall maintain a basic core set of terms for: IP
Entities, Actions and Rights, Roles.

For my use case (end-users watching content) this could mean that the
ontology should maintain definitions of Advertiser and Consumer.

In my opinion Requirement 1 is wrong anyway. A copyright ontology
should not maintain fixed definitions of Value-Chain Users, because
the role of a Value-chain user varies from case to case and depends on
the Actions he performs on the entities defined in a Creation Model.

I believe that the term 'Role' in Requirement 1 makes the proposed
ontology quite unflexible. Xin's answer to my use case might help to
illustrate what I mean.

"Wang, Xin" <xin.wang@...> writes:

>> Commercials are content (instances of manifestations of works). The
>> only difference between "non-commercial" and "commercial" content
>> is the direction of the payment: end-users pay for watching the
>> first type and are "being paid" for watching the second type of
>> content.
>
> Not sure if that's the only difference. For instance, for
> commercial-supported non-commercial content (like public TV),
> end-users pay nothing. Also, more importantly, "commercial" content
> is selected by its providers to "force" or "target" end-user to
> watch, whereas "non-commercial" content is most time selected by
> end-users themselves.
>
> I guess what I like to say is that consuming/distributing these two
> types of content involves not just rights (to consume) but also
> obligations (to consume): having rights to watch
> commercial-supported non-commercial content for free may imply
> bearing obligations to watch commercials.

Assume three Users:

- GBC, a public TV broadcaster, broadcasts a piece of
   commercial-supported non-commercial content which consists of
   commercial (c) and non-commercial (n) segments:

   {|nnnnnn|cc|nnnnnnn|ccc|nnnnnnn|cccc|nnn|}

   Figure: a piece of content

- JOE, an End-user, wants to watch the full piece of content including
   the commercials

- JAH, an End-user, wants to extract scenes for his documentary film
   project "weird haircuts and moustaches of the 1970ties".

If DRM environment based on an ontology requires: only Users who first
declare the Role of a Consumer can watch the content for free, JOE
declares that he is a Consumer and then can watch the content.

But what about JAH? He is not a Consumer. He is an artist who needs to
sample scenes from television for the creation of his new Work.

If JAH declares that he will take on the Role of a Creator he will not
be able to extract non-commercial scenes, because as a consequence of
accepting the license agreement he would bear the obligation to
"consume" the complete content.

A DRM environment could make sampling impossible, because licenses are
not explicit about the sampling policy and because all 'copy' Actions
are blocked by default, even if they are intended for private
purposes.

In the paper 'Promoting Music Sampling by Semantic Web-enhanced DRM
tools' [1] Roberto Garcia and I proposed a different model for a
copyright ontology which tackles this problem.

I would be glad if the readers of this list would toy with our ideas
before discussing an ontology which seems to oversimplify the
relationships between Value-chain users.

yours sincerley,
Martin

[1] http://rhizomik.net/content/roberto/papers/msrg-virtualgoods07.pdf

>    ______________________________________________________________________
>
>    From: mvco@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mvco@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>    Martin Springer
>    Sent: Tuesday, 01 April, 2008 10:30
>    To: mvco@yahoogroups.com
>    Subject: Re: [mvco] MVCO
>
>
>    Leonardo,
>    "Leonardo Chiariglione" <leonardo@...> writes:
>    > Looking at the requirements document I have seen that we have a
>    > very detailed set of requirements for the "content" part,
>    > i.e. for what people produce, typically with the expectation of
>    > being remunerated.
>    >
>    > What about the other type of content that people produce, typically
>    > with the plan of remunerating others for end users to watch or hear?
>    Who produces content with the plan of remunerating others for
>    end-users to watch or hear?
>    Advertisers produce commercials with the plan of remunerating service
>    providers for end-users to watch or hear them.
>    > I believe that this type of content and the users handling it are
>    > important.
>    >
>    > Any opinion?
>    Commercials are content (instances of manifestations of works). The
>    only difference between "non-commercial" and "commercial" content is
>    the direction of the payment: end-users pay for watching the first
>    type and are "being paid" for watching the second type of content.
>    So if I have not completely misinterpreted your intervetion I don't
>    think that our Ontology is missing a requirement.
>    yours,
>    Martin
>
>

--
Martin Springer         GPG-ID  1024D/23058565
Husemannstrasse 7       PHONE  +49.30.41717658
D-10435 Berlin          MOBILE +49.172.3036702

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 26/3/2008 18:50

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 17:37

Leonardo,

"Leonardo Chiariglione" <leonardo@...> writes:

>    Looking at the requirements document I have seen that we have a
>    very detailed set of requirements for the "content" part,
>    i.e. for what people produce, typically with the expectation of
>    being remunerated.
>
>    What about the other type of content that people produce, typically
>    with the plan of remunerating others for end users to watch or hear?

Who produces content with the plan of remunerating others for
end-users to watch or hear?

Advertisers produce commercials with the plan of remunerating service
providers for end-users to watch or hear them.

>    I believe that this type of content and the users handling it are
>    important.
>
>    Any opinion?

Commercials are content (instances of manifestations of works). The
only difference between "non-commercial" and "commercial" content is
the direction of the payment: end-users pay for watching the first
type and are "being paid" for watching the second type of content.

So if I have not completely misinterpreted your intervetion I don't
think that our Ontology is missing a requirement.

yours,
Martin

aime, All,

during the DMP GA17 in London I learned that my second requirement for
the MVCO was not clear. Thanks to the discussions and valuable input
by DMP members I was able to rephrase it - see attachment. I hope it's
clear now.

I am looking forward to reading your comments.

yours sincerely,
Martin Springer

--
Martin Springer         GPG-ID  1024D/23058565
Husemannstrasse 7       PHONE  +49.30.41717658
D-10435 Berlin          MOBILE +49.172.3036702

Dear colleagues,

Please find attached a proposed Report of the MPEG AhG on Requirements of
Media Value Chains Ontologies.

If you have any comment, please let us know.

We hope to do relevant work during this week in Antalya.

Regards,


          Jaime.

Leonardo,

I would like to comment:

As stated in the requirements list document, the first ten
requirements use DMP definitions and therefore the annex was
provided to facialitate understanding at this stage.

The document only provides some examples:

o       Creator

o       Adaptor

o       Instantiator

o       Producer

o       Distributor

o       End User



This list can certainly be extended and needs not only be rights
oriented as the example covers other value chain roles i.e,
Producer, Distributor and End-User. What is impotant to keep in mind
is that a Core set of roles and relaqtionships should include the
minimun and necessary set from which other specializations can be
adequately derived.  For example, a Retailer and Broadcaster may be
defined adequately   as a specialization of Distributor as might
also be the case with P2P User. Similarly there should be
specializations of Instantiator, Adapator etc..

Best,

Marc



--- In mvco@yahoogroups.com, "Leonardo Chiariglione" <leonardo@...>
wrote:
>
> Jaime,
>
> I have two comments.
>
> The first is based on the interest I stated in Shenzhen about user
role
> description. The document talks about user role but seems very much
> rights-centred.
>
> The second needs a disclaimer. Of course I like the DMP
terminology :-), but
> what is the intention of putting it in the ontology requirements?
>
> Leonardo
>
>
>
> Leonardo Chiariglione, Ph. D.
>
> Digital Media Strategist
>
>  <http://www.cedeo.net/> http://www.cedeo.net/
>
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: mvco@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mvco@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Jaime
> Delgado
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 December, 2007 14:09
> To: mvco@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: melanie.dulong-de-rosnay@...; evar@...;
> Marcelo.DiPietro@...; arosas@...; eiriarte@...; Richard
> Owens
> Subject: Re: [mvco] Kick-off of the AHG on Requirements of Media
Value
> Chains Ontologies
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Since the next MPEG meeting is approaching, I would like to
continue
> activity in this AhG in order to be able to have some consensus
for then.
>
> I am enclosing some material for your consideration:
>
>         - List of all the requirements proposed until know in the
different
> phases of this work:
>                  * If we are missing any previously proposed
requirement,
> please let me know.
>                  * Please comment and refine them further as may be
> required. Also please note that requirements 15 and 16 have been
identified
> but still require full descriptions as is the case with the others.
>         - A document on A Common Core IP Model that was already
contributed
> but not formally uploaded.
>
> I know that some people are having problems to get into the list
(Yahoo
> Groups). Please contact me if you need any help.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>         Jaime Delgado
>         AhG Co-Chair
>
> At 00:54 16/11/2007, Wang, Xin wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> This is the kick-off of the AHG on Requirements of Media Value
Chains
> Ontologies.
>
>
>
> Here is the mandate:
>
> -           To define scope, context and objectives.
>
> -           To gather requirements and use cases for possible
> standardization activities on ontologies to cover the different
aspects of
> media value chains, initially in the areas of: Intellectual
Property,
> Authorization Models, User role description, Context description,
Social
> tagging.
>
>
>
> Discussions should happen on this reflector mvco@yahoogroups.
> <mailto:mvco@yahoogroups.com> com (not on the MPEG-21 reflector)
and there
> may be a meeting on the weekend prior to the 83rd meeting.
>
>
>
> To subscribe this reflector, go to: http://groups.
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mvco> yahoo.com/group/mvco.
>
>
>
> Best regards.
>
>
>
> Co-chairs Jaime Delgado and Xin Wang
>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1189 - Release Date: 18/12/2007 21:40

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1191 - Release Date: 20/12/2007 14:14

Dear Jaime, All,

Jaime Delgado <jaime.delgado@...> writes:

> Please comment and refine them further as may be required.

The example in requirement 12 (Non-commercialy implementable) is
missing the reference [1]. For clarification I propose to write:

Example: The Copyright Ontology licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License.

> Also please note that requirements 15 and 16 have been identified
> but still require full descriptions as is the case with the others.

Yes, this would help. At the moment I still have problems in fully
understanding these requirements.

Here are my comments:

(1) Requirement 15 - Relevance to coded media

     Any terms defined by the proposed work shall be related directly
     to coded media and representations

In my opinion terms like Work, Manifestation, Instance,... are
directly related to coded media and representations in the sense that
these "IP Entities" can be attributed to Users.

One could argue that other terms (e.g. Role - A defined set of actions
and corresponding Conditions attributed to and required of a User,
Rights Holder - A User who has Rights to License Content,...) are not
directly related to coded media and representations.

Clearly there are terms (e.g. Sun, Moon, Chicken, Egg,...) that are
not directly related to coded media and representations.

It seems that this requirement determines the scope of a Machine
Readable Rights Ontology. Therefore I would appreciate if the authors
of Requirement 15 could explain what they mean with "related directly
to coded media and representations".

(2) Requirement 16 - Usability with ISO/IEC 21000

     The Ontology must complement the suite of ISO/IEC 21000 standards

Does this requirement mean that the Ontlogy must use the terms defined
in the MPEG-21 Rights Data Dictionary?

yours sincerely,
Martin Springer

[1] http://rhizomik.net/ontologies/2006/01/copyrightonto.owl

--
Martin Springer         GPG-ID  1024D/23058565
Husemannstrasse 7       PHONE  +49.30.41717658
D-10435 Berlin          MOBILE +49.172.3036702

Dear all,

 

This is the kick-off of the AHG on Requirements of Media Value Chains Ontologies.

 

Here is the mandate:

-           To define scope, context and objectives.

-           To gather requirements and use cases for possible standardization activities on ontologies to cover the different aspects of media value chains, initially in the areas of: Intellectual Property, Authorization Models, User role description, Context description, Social tagging.

 

Discussions should happen on this reflector mvco@yahoogroups.com (not on the MPEG-21 reflector) and there may be a meeting on the weekend prior to the 83rd meeting.

 

To subscribe this reflector, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mvco.

 

Best regards.

 

Co-chairs Jaime Delgado and Xin Wang