...
Not necessary but this is something we’ll be sharing with our community as it evolves.
Risks and Assumptions
None that we are aware of.
Milestones and Phases
...
Description
...
Success Measurement
...
Initial content is created
...
Content is approved for loading into blogs/etc.
...
Fill out button
A button for the user to fill out the appropriate information for the Federated Data license is created along with whatever hosting page necessary. When the user fills it out the following happens:
...
Delays:
In enterprises and organizations with a strong legal underpinning, employees do mostly not have authority to sign or create any form of legal commitment, including sharing of company intellectual property.
Any form of legal commitment needs to be reviewed and approved by the legal representatives of the company.
Legal teams typically will ask for changes in almost any terms and conditions. The bigger a company, the more they ask suppliers to conform to their standards, not the other way around.
Legal needs time to review the documents. Depending on their workload and the priority given to this request, this may add some time to the process.
Lower sharing
Any additional step in a process causes lower conversion and completion rates. No matter how well it is done. This step adds extra ‘work’ for the end-user and likely for the legal department. They might have other priorities or just fail to see the value.
Competition / alternatives
The need we identify is existing and real. There is a strong risk that other organizations who are in a stronger position to communicate and to create a standard, will produce a license with the same goal. Eg OSI is also in the process of creating a definition of open source as it relates to AI.
Milestones and Phases
Description | Success Measurement |
Initial content is created | Content is approved for loading into blogs/etc. |
Fill out button | A button for the user to fill out the appropriate information for the Federated Data license is created along with whatever hosting page necessary. When the user fills it out the following happens:
|
Landing page created | The landing page is up and running on the website, and the “fill out” button works. |
SEO campaign | Content is posted and the SEO campaign is running showing improved ranking for the key terms |
UCF 4.0 integration | Prior to an organization sharing information the organization fills out the form and creates a usable license, which is attached to all UCF 4.0 content they create. All success factors for “fill out button” above apply here. |
...
As a conscientious contributor, I am able to go to the Unified Compliance website and fill out the Federated Data license which allows me to fill in specific information about my organization that I represent. Once the information is filled out and I agree to share content to the community within the UC 4.0 product, I (and anyone in my organization using the same workspace), can then share content. All content that we share will have our unique license attached to that content as well as attribution to my organization.
Rainy Day Scenarios
Here is where you describe what to do when things go wrong (e.g., user closes the browser, API doesn’t return results …)I forwarded the Federated Data license to my legal department and did not obtain an approval. I emailed and called but I was told they are very busy and I will have to wait.
Requirements
Requirement | User Story | Importance | Status | Jira Issue | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Form related | |||||
Ability for potential contributors to go the UC HubSpot website page and choose an option to fill out Federated Data license. | P1 | Done | The form is a gated HubSpot form so that only authenticated users can fill it out. | ||
Ability for potential contributors to fill out the Federated Data license with information specific to their organization. | P1 | Done | Note that the form is already built by the marketing team within HubSpot. | ||
Ability to automatically email the license to the user once the form has been completed. | P1 | Done | Part of the HubSpot workflow | ||
Ability to store the form in HubSpot to the organization, once the form is filled out. | P1 | Done | Is the form attached to the company, CCH account, UC 4.0 workspace, or other? |
Yes. For example here’s the HubSpot URL for the form I filled out. | |||||
Ability to update the HubSpot contact intent to reflect that they have filled out the Federated Data license. | P1 | Done | Part of the HubSpot workflow | ||
Ability for the UC 4.0 product to have access to the Federated Data license. |
Ability for authorized users of the workspace to view the license.
Anyone besides admins? Yes, everyone. This is a license, just like any other, that needs to be viewable by anyone using the content the license applies to.
Dorian Cougias the question here was for users within a workspace (let’s say AT&T), could Reader-type AT&T users be able to view AT&T’s own license agreement directly? that is, not attached to any document, but just to be able to read the agreementP1 | In design | ||||
Ability for authorized users of the workspace to view the license. | P2 | Not started | Anyone in the company should be able to see their own license. | ||
Ability to require the customer to fill out the form prior to contributing content. | P1 | In design | For customers that do not intend share, there is no need to fill out the Federated Data license. Could be a link to the same website form and once filled out would be attached this workspace. | ||
Ability to forward the draft license to another person in the company eg legal | |||||
General terms / EULA | |||||
Ability for each user (contributor or not) be able to confirm they have read the terms (aka EULA) | P1 | Done | |||
Ability to require each user (contributor or not) to re-confirm they have read the terms (aka EULA) if/when the EULA has been updated. | P3 | Not started | |||
Ability for an end user to view the current terms at any time. | P1 | Done | |||
License and Attribution | |||||
Ability to automatically attach the license to any content that is shared with the community. | P1 | In design | Includes any existing content such as PlantUML and glossaries and sets framework for any future content type that would be added |
later. Will not do in the first stage. | |||||
Ability to automatically assign attribution for content sourced from content contributors. | P1 | In design | Includes dictionaries (e.g., OED, MW …) or other content providers |
like PCI, GRI … | |||||
Ability to automatically assign attribution for any content created within the platform. | P2 | In design | Example, if an AT&T user creates a PlantUML diagram, AT&T is attributed to the creation of that diagram. Will not do in first stage. | ||
Ability to automatically assign attribution for any content |
transformed within the platform |
Example, if an AT&T user creates a PlantUML diagram, AT&T is attributed to the creation of that diagram.
Ability to automatically assign attribution for any content enriched within the platform.
Example, if an ACME user maps in a PCI authority document, each enrichment task (e.g., tagging terms, matching to common controls) is attributed to ACME.
Dorian Cougias since we don’t yet have enrichment on UC 4.0, this is not needed at this time. Correct?
Ability for users to manually assign attribution (could be multiple) to content created (or later updated) within the platform.
Example, if an AT&T user creates a PlantUML diagram, but used sources from two other company’s websites, the user must be able to site both sources by name and source URL.
Ability for users to copy shared content and make changes while keeping the attribution chain.
. | P2 | Partially done for Dictionary term definitions. | Initially for any content that a user transforms (e.g., updates a term definition) and will set groundwork for additional transformation to content such as tagging and mapping to common controls. Will not do in the first stage. | ||
Ability for users to manually assign attribution (could be multiple) to content created (or later updated) within the platform. | P1 | Completed for Dictionary terms but not PlantUML | Example, if an AT&T user creates a PlantUML diagram, but used sources from two other company’s websites, the user must be able to site both sources by name and source URL. | ||
Ability for users to copy shared content and make changes while keeping the attribution chain. | P2 | Need to review | Example, if an ACME user copies and modifies an OED attributed dictionary term-definition pair, the copied term-definition pair will indicate that OED was the original source and ACME attributed to the updates. Will not do in the first stage. | ||
Ability for any user to see the attribution chain within the user interface and within API results. | P2 | Need to review | Example, if an ACME user copies and modifies an OED attributed dictionary term-definition pair, the |
attribution chain will show that OED was the original source and |
was modified by ACME. Will not do in the first stage. |
Ability for any user to |
Example, if an ACME user copies and modifies an OED attributed dictionary term-definition pair, the attribution chain will show that OED was the original source and was modified by ACME.
see (through the UI and API response) the license associated with each attributable source per shared content. | P1 | Need to review | Example: if a PlantUML diagram was originally created by AT&T, then copied and modified by IBM, any user can see the attribution chain (in the UI and API response) |
, but also see the licenses from both AT&T and IBM. Example: if |
Example: if an ACME user maps in a PCI authority document, each enrichment task (e.g., tagging terms, matching to common controls) is attributed to ACME. End-users are able to see attribution to PCI as the authority source and ACME as the content enrichment provider including links to licenses for both PCI and ACME.
Ability for any user to view and download their organization’s license (e.g. PDF) to share with legal, compliance, or other teams.
an ACME user maps in a PCI authority document, each enrichment task (e.g., tagging terms, matching to common controls) is attributed to ACME. End-users are able to see attribution to PCI as the authority source and ACME as the content enrichment provider including links to licenses for both PCI and ACME. | |||||
Ability for any user to view and download their organization’s license from within the workspace (e.g. PDF) to share with legal, compliance, or other teams. | P2 | Will not do in the first stage. |
Cost
Estimated effort to fulfill all P1 requirements:
Design and Documentation: 4 weeks
Build Solution: 4 weeks.
Total Duration: 8 weeks.
Estimated Number of resources to fulfill all P1 requirements:
Design Resources: 1.
Build Resources: 3.
Open Questions
List any open questions that come to mind throughout the lifecycle of this project
Question | Answer | Date Answered |
|---|---|---|
What happens when a company wants to update their general commons license? | For now they don’t. | 11/22 |
What happens if a company is allowed to update an agreement and already have licensed content under an existing agreement? | Same as above for now. | 11/22 |
What is our stance if an employee failed to adhere to internal regulations, signs the license and starts sharing even when they technically were not allowed to? |
Out of Scope / Future Functionality
...