[Minutes] 2017 03 13

The minutes of today's call are at 
https://www.w3.org/2017/03/13-poe-minutes (note the flashy new styling 
:-) ) and as good 'ol text below.



   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

13 March 2017

    [2]Agenda [3]IRC log

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170313
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/03/13-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           CarolineB, benws17, michaelS, phila, renato, simonstey_

    Regrets
           Ivan, Sabrina, Serena, Victor

    Chair
           Ben

    Scribe
           Phil

Contents

      * [4]Meeting Minutes
          1. [5]Preliminaries
          2. [6]Deliverables review
          3. [7]Notes
          4. [8]London F2F
          5. [9]AOB?
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      * [11]Summary of Resolutions

Meeting Minutes

Preliminaries

    benws17: Any objection to last week's minutes?

    NOTUC

    Resolved: Minutes of 6 March approved

Deliverables review

    <renato> [12]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables

      [12] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables

    renato: That page lists wide review recipients so far
    … Most are done. A couple still to do

    renato: Last week or so, someone said they'd contact the AC
    review members who said they'd support the WG

    benws17: Yes, I did, I'll do that in the comings days.

    renato: It's on track. Phil has some to do

    phila: Red faced. Have done one just now, will complete today

    renato: For horizontal review

    phila: Will handle a11y as promised

    renato: They'll look at a11y of the spec itself

    <renato> [13]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/114

      [13] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/114

    renato: There's a GH issue for this. There are some places
    where we used bold cf strong, so I have a GH job for that
    … And I have a URL for a checker
    … SO we can do that for the 2 main specs
    … Next on the list is i18n
    … Brian was tasked to do that and did send a mail to the lis
    … He sent a PDF attachment

    <renato> [14]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
    public-poe-wg/2017Mar/0009.html

      [14] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2017Mar/0009.html

    renato: The PDF there is where he tried to click the checkboxes
    relevant to our area
    … He got N/A for a number of them
    … Some aren't checked. Not sure what that means

    benws17: I can loop back with Brain later

    <renato> [15]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
    public-poe-comments/2017Mar/0005.html

      [15] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-comments/2017Mar/0005.html

    renato: Next horizontal review was security. I sent the mail
    … I answered most of their questions with 'no.'
    … Except that we do have a p and s section
    … No response as yet

    renato: Next was privacy.

    <renato> [16]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/
    Privacy_Considerations

      [16] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Privacy_Considerations

    renato: I have a draft wiki page answering the questions
    … I'll send that to the privacy IG
    … They have 13 questions.
    … We don't currently have a Privacy considerations section but
    I think we should have.
    … I've suggested how the section could be worded
    … This is just to make implementers aware of the issue

    renato: I think we can make it clear that the text will be
    there. The other questions are mostly answered with no.
    … No 6 asks if data could be faked. Well, yes it can, so you
    have to trust the parties involved but that's out of scope for
    us.

    benws17: It's a genuine issue - for others to solve.

    renato: I can send that off to the privacy IG as with the
    security folks

Notes

    benws17: Is simonstey here?

    <benws17> Simon - are you out there? Are you calling in?

    benws17: Formal semantics and Best Practices

    <benws17> Can you call in and talk to the formal semantics?

    benws17: I'll talk about the best practices. I'm going to start
    work on it soon.
    … I've been working on profiles for specific industries, esp.
    financial markets

    <renato> ODRL Best Practices: [17]http://w3c.github.io/poe/bp/

      [17] http://w3c.github.io/poe/bp/

    benws17: Those licences are complex

    benws17: They push the expressivity of ODRL quite hard
    … Victor will, I hope, include some egs from standard licences
    and how to express those.
    … What we need are more examples
    … I'll write to the CG and ask for these.

    benws17: We need feedback from the community about whether
    these are indeed BPs

    <simonstey_> simonstey_: we started to go through other FS
    notes

    benws17: I'd expect to start working on that next week

    benws17: I'll try and hook up with victor

    phila: So the BP doc will include things like CC-BY?

    benws17: Yes, I hope Victor will provide that.

    <simonstey_> simonstey_: I raised/reopened some issues
    regarding the infomodel

    benws17: The doc isn't about those licences, it's about how you
    express the issues that come up in those licences

    renato: Paul Jessop is down as a co-editor, but we've not heard
    from him since Lisbon.
    … I can drop him an e-mail to see if he's still interested.

    benws17: Please cc me
    … he may have examples from music and film

    <simonstey_> simonstey_: we'll have a first draft of the formal
    semantics note for our next f2f meeting

    renato: I think James B might also be worth asking

    <renato> thanks simon!

    CarolineB: If he's allowed to, memebrship wise

    phila: Yes, Catapult has lapsed (and he's left anyway) but
    don't that let that stop us asking James

    <CarolineB> *me he could com ein under our membership?

    benws17: Contracting parties often come up in agreements

    renato: That's in the GH repo as an issue

    benws17: I think we have versioning covered but I guess I
    should write some use cases to make sure
    … Victor did provide an eg
    … but it doesn't have the same semantics

    <renato> Party roles (action 20) [18]https://github.com/w3c/
    poe/issues/110

      [18] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/110

    benws17: We do need a kind of regulatory policy

    renato: I think Sabrina has proposed a regulation policy type

    <simonstey_> simonstey_: we are working on representing the
    gdpr in ODRL

    <simonstey_> ... and as such derive req for regulatory policy
    type

    renato: 20, 23, 25, 28 and 38 can all be closed in tracker

    close action-20

    <trackbot> Closed action-20.

    close action-23

    <trackbot> Closed action-23.

    close action-25

    <trackbot> Closed action-25.

    close action-28

    <trackbot> Closed action-28.

    close action-38

    <trackbot> Closed action-38.

    close action-41

    <trackbot> Closed action-41.

London F2F

    benws17: We need to know who's coming, details, hotels etc.

    renato: There's the logistics etc.

    phila: We need wi-fi for remote participation

    phila: Is TR offering tea and coffee

    phila: There's no obligation to provide lunch but it's nice if
    you do.

    benws17: I assume we'll provide sandwiches

    <renato> [19]https://iptc.org/events/spring-meeting-2017/

      [19] https://iptc.org/events/spring-meeting-2017/

    phila: I'm doping a talk organised by Bill K on the Wednesday

    michaelS: IPTC?

    phila: Sounds right

    benws17: And there's a thing on Monday that I'm at
    … at the BBC

    <michaelS> [20]https://iptc.org/events/spring-meeting-2017/

      [20] https://iptc.org/events/spring-meeting-2017/

    benws17: Lots of interesting people in London that week, so how
    big will the room need to be.
    … 15 people?

    renato: I think that'll be pushing it. In Lisbon we had about 8
    … A room that holds 10 will be enough

    <renato> [21]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/
    Meetings:London2017

      [21] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:London2017

    phila: It's not unreasonable to insist that people declare
    whether they're going to be there or not.

AOB?

    [None]

    renato: So what is next week's agenda?

    <simonstey_> simonstey_: everyone has a look at open issues &
    reads through the spec?

    <renato> [22]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues

      [22] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues

    phila: Asks about issues open at the moment

    renato: The plan is that the open issues will be closed during
    the F2F

    phila: So you're not planning to go to CR until after F2F?

    renato: That's the plan

    <simonstey_> simonstey_: I would object to this

    benws17: I think it will be 2 weeks before BP doc is ready for
    discussion

    <simonstey_> ... that is, going to CR before f2F

    benws17: Next week cold be a short 15 min call
    … Just to recap

    <benws17> CR after F2F :)

    benws17: Anything else?

    [Nope]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [23]Minutes of 6 March approved

Received on Monday, 13 March 2017 13:52:16 UTC