[Minutes] 2017-01-09

The minutes of today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2017/01/09-poe-minutes with a text snapshot below. We 
got through several issues today - a good meeting.

Thanks to Michael for scribing (again).


   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

09 Jan 2017

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170109

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/01/09-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Serena, renato, michaelS, benws, phila, Sabrina,
           simonstey, James, smyles, victor

    Regrets
    Chair
           Renato

    Scribe
           michaelS

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]approve last meeting minutes
          2. [6]issues needing a WG Decision
          3. [7]issue #48
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      * [9]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <scribe> scribe: michaelS

    <scribe> scribenick: michaelS

approve last meeting minutes

    <renato> [10]https://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-poe-minutes.html

      [10] https://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-poe-minutes.html

    <Serena> +1

    renato: any updates or comments?

    +1

    RESOLUTION: Minutes of 12/12/16 approved

    scribe: hearing not comments

    RESOLUTION: minutes accepted

issues needing a WG Decision

    <renato>
    [11]https://github.com/w3c/poe/labels/Needs%20WG%20Decision

      [11] https://github.com/w3c/poe/labels/Needs WG Decision

    <phila> [12]Issue 84

      [12] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/84

    <renato> [13]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/84

      [13] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/84

    First issue #84

    [14]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/84

      [14] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/84

    renato: outlined the change: creating a new explicit
    leftOperand property taking the name of the constraint
    ... this makes the structure quite clear

    phila: seems clear. does this solve the relative times use
    case?

    renato: sorry, but it doesn't

    benws: is that a kind of ontoloy housekeeping

    renato: the current way of expressing is not wrong but not easy
    to follow. The change makes things clearer

    phila: Worries about the relationship "constraint" leading to
    "Constraint" - he is not perfect as some langauges has not
    upper/lower case script

    renato: "has constraint" is the human readable label

    <renato> [15]http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-constraint

      [15] http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-constraint

    phila: agrees to this workaround but would be happier about an
    explicit property id

    benws: having 2 URIs for the same property?

    phila: yes

    renato: not happy about having two properties for the same use

    phila: would deprecate "constraint" and create "hasConstraint"

    <simonstey> +q

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to go on about i18n

    simonstey: didn't we have the same discussion about other
    properties? Does not like having "has..." and "..." properties

    renato: after the Lisbon meeting some properties got a "has"
    prefixed to the label
    ... any objections to the proposal of #84?
    ... hearing none concluded that is agreed

    <renato> [16]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/82

      [16] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/82

    renato: issue 82
    ... outlined the change: this proposal allows to have a party
    or asset also at the Policy level, both apply to any rule of
    this policy

    be

    benws: what if party/asset exist at the Policy and the Rule
    level

    renato: this would be an invalid use

    benws: multiple uses would be useful

    renato: a mix of parties and assets not of help

    smyles: is this a change to the information model

    renato: it is a change to the model but not a significant one

    smyles: is this only a change of the syntax only

    benws: not a change, improves the precision

    <simonstey> Party: the Permission MAY refer to one or more
    Party entities linked via the Role entity (OPTIONAL)

    simonstey: doesn't see the need for making a policy wiht
    party/asset at Policy and Rule level invalid
    ... if we stick to that we need to reword the specification

    James: we opted for having a flexible set of
    permissions/prohibitions

    michaelS: having party/asset at both levels would make users
    using both - not reading the free-text specs

    phila: would it reduce the problme to use an explicit "inherit"
    in Rules indicating that the value of the Policy level should
    be used

    <James> +1

    <Serena> +1

    benws: I like the feature, in 99% of the cases only the policy
    level would be used. We should decide either "union" or
    "overwrite"

    <Serena> +1 for overwriting

    renato: Option 1: a party/asset in a Rule overwrites
    party/asset of the Policy level

    phila: the information model should include a test including
    this feature

    <simonstey> fwiw,
    [17]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#POE.R.R_Proce
    ssing_Rules

      [17] 
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#POE.R.R_Processing_Rules

    <simonstey> +q

    Sabrina: pointed at the conflict resolution of ODRL. The more
    generic should take precedence over more specific

    simonstey: this conflict resolution does not define (yet)
    anything for assets and parties, this needs to be explicitly
    added
    ... we should think of the use case of having party/asset in a
    parent policy, how are they inherited in a child policy?

    renato: agreed that this feature of policy inheritance was not
    reviewed yet
    ... current options: keep it as it is or adding party/asset to
    the policy level with an "overwrite" rule

    <simonstey> +q

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about
    [18]https://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#powderprocessor as an
    example

      [18] https://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#powderprocessor

    benws: renato and Serena shoudl have a look at the policy
    inheritance first

    phila: pointed a the Powder Processor - the work on that ended
    with a section of rules for making software conformant.

    <simonstey> The Child Policy MUST override the Parent Policy.
    i.e.: If the same Action appears in the Parent, then it is
    replaced by the Child version, otherwise the Parent Actions are
    added to the Child’s Actions.

    simonstey: pointed at overly compex rules in the context of
    policy inheritance - the ODRL specs should not go in this
    direction

    renato: inheritance was understood well in the ODRL 2.1 (and
    earlier) wordl

    <renato> [19]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/73

      [19] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/73

    renato: Issue #73
    ... outlined the change: this change allows to have multiple
    actions per rule
    ... e.g. distributed, printed and more in the same rule

    <simonstey> +q

    renato: in fact a shortcut of many rules with only different
    actions

    benws: likes this change.
    ... this could speed up the processing.

    simonstey: felt that this could have been done already by users
    not reading the specs :-(

    <Sabrina> +q

    simonstey: but are a list of rules and the same combined into
    one semantically the same.
    ... in this case that must be defined explicitly.

    <Serena> * we should check carefully inheritance in this case
    too *

    <victor> +1

    benws: Can we apply the same logic to assets = having multiple
    in a rule?

    renato: could be ...

    <victor> I would handle assets in the same manner, using the
    same logic.

    <Sabrina> +q

    benws: suggest to have a look at both

    renato: agreed.

    Sabrina: shouldn't that apply to parties too?

    renato: yes, but already yet multiply parties may be assigned
    to a single rule

    <renato> [20]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/72

      [20] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/72

    renato: Issue #72
    ... outlined the change: return to the original approach of
    "odrl-vocab"

    <Sabrina> +1

    <victor> +1

    <Serena> +1

    <smyles> +1

    <renato> +1

    <James> +1

    <renato> Proposal: change vocab short name to "odrl-vocab"

    <simonstey> +1

    <Sabrina> +1

    <Serena> +1

    <smyles> +1

    RESOLUTION: change vocab short name to "odrl-vocab"

    <renato> [21]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/48

      [21] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/48

    Issue #48

    issue #48

issue #48

    renato: invited group members to have a look at that issue and
    to submit comments

    <simonstey> +1

    <simonstey> -1

    <simonstey> +q

    simonstey: How does this differ from constraints

    renato: this is not about constraints but provides information
    about the policy document

    <victor> Just to say that I would also add authorship and
    license itself.

    benws: new topic: wants to see constraints on constraints
    examples

    renato: let's put it on the agenda for the next call

    <James> Thanks

    renato: next call next week

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [22]Minutes of 12/12/16 approved
     2. [23]minutes accepted
     3. [24]change vocab short name to "odrl-vocab"

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 9 January 2017 13:36:48 UTC