Minutes of the W3C Rights Automation Community Group 2020-11-25

Please find the minutes of today’s meeting at https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html and pasted below.
Summary of Action Items
ACTION: Ben to take the discussion to the mailing list (referring to administrator)
Summary of Resolutions

  1.  Accept minutes of last meeting<https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#resolution01>
  2.  we draw the line as specifying things that could not reasonably be automated right now<https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#resolution02>
Many thanks
Jo

Market Data Rights Automation Teleconference
25 Nov 2020

Agenda<https://w3c.github.io/market-data-odrl-profile/agendas/md-odrl-profile-agenda-2020-11-25.html>

Attendees
Present
jo, ben, laura, caspar, Ilya, jeremy, markB, Marko, Nigel, Roy, michelle, adam
Regrets
renato, josh, phil, markD, Mark_D, Atiq_K, Phil_R, Jane_FB, Karishma_B, Trisha_P
Chair
jo
Scribe
jo
Contents

  *   Topics<https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#agenda>
     *   Admin<https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#item01>
     *   Editors' Update<https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#item02>
     *   Party Roles<https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#item03>
     *   Licensees and Affiliates<https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#item04>
     *   Administrator<https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#item05>
     *   Duties<https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#item06>
     *   AOB<https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#item07>
  *   Summary of Action Items<https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
  *   Summary of Resolutions<https://www.w3.org/2020/11/25-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary>

________________________________
Admin

Last Meeting Minutes: https://www.w3.org/2020/11/11-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html


<scribe> scribe: jo

jo: covering actions ... Ben and Mark need to catch up on action
... mark discusses access to odrl for PoC leads

RESOLUTION: Accept minutes of last meeting

Editors' Update

Ben: start with feedback

Mark: when we divvied up the profile, I thought this is going to be quick, typos and the like
... however we did not even finish he parties section in my team meeting
... so this will be a longer, multi-session conversation

Nigel: this is me and Michelle going through whole document, will take a while
... initial feedback circulated ahead of the meeting

ben: want consensus that changes suggested are the way to go

Party Roles

nigel: think we need to differentiate party types, more than internal and external
... for internal need to differentiate between employees of the licensee, and affiliates
... external ... differentiate professional consumers, vs others
... particularly around duties ... different parties or different roles?

mark: likewise re affiliates ... should they be names as something separate
... also because affiliates might be ennumerated by a license
... secondly, a party can be an entity or a person
... in vendor provides to bank and bank distributes to humans
... wonder if it's sufficient to be understood
... industry thinks of this as different things

nigel: users with eyeballs is a specific thing in some contracts, maybe count applications
... might be a unit of count thing
... there is a notion that corporations are treated as a person

michelle: there is a distinction - key point is what type of usage there might be

mark: distribution to an entity doesn't have a unit of count
... are they different things?

michelle: is it roles?

mark: might be that there is one role and one distinguishes in context

nigel: question would be in the unit of count - distinguished by say devices for a person, if applications then the applications
... would be a role of display app or non display app role

Licensees and Affiliates

mark: question for Ben, to what degree do we need to specify the terms that are a bit generic

ben: there are distinguish between licensee and affiliates, and need some rules around what is an affiliate and
... also lists of affiliates, professional, non-professional, possibly academic ... we can capture this maybe as types of party
... another point in this though is that there are individual people, what is the relationship between the licensing entity and the
... downstream consumers ... can pick this up in a number of ways, might be user id, type of device and so on
... hope we have already covered that but do need to cover types of user

mark: is that OK for you to make tweaks, then?

ben: yes, sure, I'll send an email out to capture types of users

michelle: also got public users, like a web site

ben: yes and also to developers
... point from Roy
... to be continued on mailing list

nigel: next issue is roles, facilitator, we thought that this is something that is to use the data on behalf of the licensor
... too narrow and doesn't cover things that could reasonably be considered in scope for a service facilitator

mark: can we broaden this and still retain some kind of sense
... (gives examples contrasting use of data and admin functions too)

micelle: confused as to what admin functions is

ben: distinction between service facilitator admin is that an administrator doesn't get the data

nigel: yes, agree,

michelle: facilitator receives the data
... you send them the data and they send the results back
... alternatively they may have access indpeendently using your rights

ben: do we have to?

michelle: yes there are ramifications

nigel: is that a difference in duties or how they get the data

michelle: specifically delivery in a recent example

nigel: but are there differences that depend on how hey got the data
... distinguish between using the "access" or using "access rights"

mark: the definition of service facilitator less to do with the role it plays, more focused on the fact that it is an unlicensed party using someone else's rights

michelle: they can have their own rights
... normally you'd assume that you are giving the service facilitator your rights but there are exceptions

Administrator

mark: pull out the overlap between originator and administrator - so you can be both

ben: is there a better term for Administrator

nigel: needs to be distinguished from market data control function

jo: let's pick this up on mailing list - condensed down into a set of menu options more easily decided on list

ben: I will do that and circ on list

nigel: I will work more on this and provide more feedback

<scribe> ACTION: Ben to take the discussion to the mailing list

Duties

caspar: we started looking at disclaimer and attributions - there is a need to propagate state
... e.g. when a duty is fulfilled
... dpends where it is done in the system
... lot of it is done in conract, but also there are references to URLs
... a policy store needs to be able to pull wording from Web page to make the response atomic
... need for an XSD duration to see if a page has been updated

ben: felt that this has been missing for a while, held on a Web page somewhere, so the diuties need
... to be able to point o a Web page, and the actual wording may change from time to time
... think we need to be able to drepresent that in the stahndard
... will make suggestions via mailing list

caspar: Policy management needs to be expanded to reference external sources of information, you must check the web page with some kind of frequency

ben: that makes sense too, need to get the PoCs onto the GitHub pages and get some kind of architectural designs there

Mark: that's my TO DO
... Should I put a space there for you?

caspar: yes, but we need to sort out legal stuff
... lot of contract language says disclaimers have to be displayed, attribution also needs to be taken care of (like it needs to be near a chart) and so on
... not sure if that needs to be reflected

Ben: interesting question as to what the nuances of this are, I have been assuming that is a level of detail what we won't be capturing at this stage
... interested in what the group thinks about it

jo: things like that could not be done automatically, so maybe that is where to draw the line

nigel: agree that the v 1 standard needs to be of manageable scope, could be very complicated, but also agree with Caspar that we need to be able to refer out to written documents

ben: we'll take that as a resolution

jo: how about writing a resolution as such

Mark: this could be down to someone saying that they attest to something being done, because it can't be automated

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: we draw the line as specifying things that could not reasonably be automated right now

ben: work being done on verifiable claims elsewhere in W3C - would be interesting to see how much we can leverage that work

RESOLUTION: we draw the line as specifying things that could not reasonably be automated right now

AOB

mark: will send out an invite to see the ODRL generator in action in 'the off week'

--- meeting closed ---


---
This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.

Please refer to https://www.db.com/disclosures for additional EU corporate and regulatory disclosures and to http://www.db.com/unitedkingdom/content/privacy.htm for information about privacy.