[Minutes] 2016-04-04

The minutes of today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes and copied as text below.

Thanks to Simon for scribing.


   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

04 Apr 2016

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160404

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           simonstey, james, phila, renato, jo, victor, ivan,
           paulj, mmcrober, michaels, magyarblip, nandana, benws,
           smyles

    Regrets
           Sabrina

    Chair
           Renato

    Scribe
           simonstey

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Preliminaries
          2. [6]use case template
          3. [7]Use Case collection and review process
          4. [8]Deliverables
          5. [9]F2F meeting
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      * [11]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <michaelS> present# michaelS

    <scribe> scribe: simonstey

    <renato> agenda
    [12]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160404

      [12] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160404

Preliminaries

    renato: approval of last week's minutes

    <renato> [13]https://www.w3.org/2016/03/24-poe-minutes

      [13] https://www.w3.org/2016/03/24-poe-minutes

    <phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes

    <phila> +1

    +1

    <mmcrober> +1

    <james> +1

    RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes

use case template

    <magyarblip> +1

    <renato> [14]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases

      [14] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases

    <michaelS> +1

    renato: michael proposed a first template

    <magyarblip> something weird happening on webex - apparently i
    am now host

    <renato> i am rejoining webex now too...

    [some issues with webex]

    michaelS: the use case page now contains a uc template
    ... inspired from other group's template
    ... demographic information about uc owner

    <renato> @phila how do I do that?

    michaelS: template also contains natural & formal language
    expression sections for describing the uc

    <renato> (done, I am host)

    michaelS: technical expression may include information relating
    to data model
    ... based on that template, I've created an example uc

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about process

    michaelS: the included "dummy use case" is actually a real
    world uc

    phila: one thing that worried me was the fact that you said you
    had an offline discussion with james to set up the template
    ... such discussions need to be made online/with consent of the
    group

    michaelS: do we need contact details for ucs?

    phila: if you want to, that's good.. but it's not essential
    ... the more real world a uc is, the better

    magyarblip: looking at the uc, it's way more extensive than I
    would have expected at this stage

    <mmcrober> I'd echo that - it seems like an expression of how
    ODRL is actually used in practice, rather than a *desirable*
    usecase

    renato: I think we should clearly state what parts are
    optional/mandatory
    ... we should try to express what we want to have/what we
    require, rather than already providing a solution

    mmcrober: I'm happy with the template
    ... I would like to see a minimum dummy uc
    ... I can provide research related ucs

    <phila> ACTION: Mo to provide use case from research and
    education domain [recorded in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action01]

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Provide use case from research
    and education domain [on Mo McRoberts - due 2016-04-11].

    <mmcrober> for info, the Research & Education Space I refer to
    is: [16]https://bbcarchdev.github.io/res/

      [16] https://bbcarchdev.github.io/res/

    victor: we should also consider requirements

    phila: yes, requirements need to be explicit

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Reqs

    phila: the same requirements can come from multiple ucs
    ... you may end up merging requirements, point to other
    requirements, ...
    ... we should have them at the end of each uc

    <phila> simonstey: Just think about what you said earlier about
    there being no new requirements. We need to somewhere make
    those old requiremetns explicit

    <phila> ... No one knows all the old ODRL requirements. We can
    take tham as a basis and revise them, rather than just storing
    new requirements.

    benws: I wanted to say we should distinguish between uc and
    requirements gathering
    ... we shouldn't set the bar so high
    ... but should try to gather as much input as possible

    renato: I think we should first collect use cases and in a
    later phase decide whether we want to keep them -> derive
    requirements
    ... we should set an easy entry point for people to contribute
    ... we might end up with removing the technical expression part

Use Case collection and review process

    <phila> ACTION: Renato to go to the ODRL CG to ask for use
    cases [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action02]

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Go to the odrl cg to ask for use
    cases [on Renato Iannella - due 2016-04-11].

    renato: should we make a wider call for use cases? e.g. ODRL
    community group or any other group?

    <phila> ACTION: phila to gather use cases from BigDataEurope
    project [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action03]

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Gather use cases from
    bigdataeurope project [on Phil Archer - due 2016-04-11].

    renato: or do we think we will have enough input from our group
    members?

    <phila> Use cases can come from anywhere - and are welcome

    <phila> It is then for the Wg to decide whether to act on them

    michaelS: are we allowed to ask colleagues for suitable input?

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to wonder about the IP context around
    contribution of use cases

    paulj: we may consider asking formally for external input

    <phila> public-poe-comments@w3.org

    jo: how can the group accept input from non-members?

    phila: I think it would be wise to ... [broke up]

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about public-poe-comments

    <phila> Use cases are pretty free of IP

    ivan: I think the question is really related to uc now, but the
    same question may also come up later

    <phila> The danger might be that we include a load of reqs that
    can *only* be met by using a specific piece of software - then
    we'd be in trouble.

    ivan: if someone external wants to contribute to the spec

    <phila> Use Case doc is a Note (non-normative) so IP
    considerations are less important.

    ivan: that's not relevant now, but keep in mind that it might
    come up later

    jo: can we formally note how external contributions shall be
    made

    <phila> Summary - we don't need to be too concerned about IP
    issues related to the use case document due teo the nature of
    the document. However, the ideal method of submission is via
    the public comments mailing list which carries some IP
    disclosure info.

    <phila> public-poe-comments

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Anyone (outside the group) can
    corntribute use cases without there being an IP impediment,
    however it's alwyas best to contribute on
    public-poe-comments@w3,org

    +1

    <phila> I think that's fair

    <magyarblip> +1

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Anyone (outside the group) can
    contribute use cases without there being an IP impediment,
    however it's alwys best to contribute on
    public-poe-comments@w3.org

    <ivan> +1

    <michaelS> +1

    RESOLUTION: Anyone (outside the group) can contribute use cases
    without there being an IP impediment, however it's alwys best
    to contribute on public-poe-comments@w3.org

    renato: wg members can create additional uc in the wiki
    ... externals will be asked to provide their uc via mail using
    our template
    ... we will then move them to the wiki

    <magyarblip> i am going to reach out to the bisg (book industry
    standards group) who have been doing related work, not so much
    odrl as best practices for the industry

    <phila> Yes, WG members should subscribe to the public comments
    list (it's not automatic)

    <mmcrober> oh bother

    mmcrober: may I propose to note that resolution on the uc wiki
    page?

    <mmcrober> simonstey: yes please

    <magyarblip> +1 anything we can point folks to that introduces
    them *gently* to the area

    <phila> Our wiki is only writable by WG members

    renato: editing the wikipage is limited to whom exactly?

    phila: only wg members can edit it

    michaelS: I'll update the uc page tomorrow

Deliverables

    renato: in the charter we've listed 5 contributions
    ... we wanted to get the core specs/recommendations out asap
    ... we need to come up with editors for each of the 5 specs
    ... the vocabulary and the ontology might be very similar
    contentwise
    ... we might consider merging them into one document in order
    to avoid any update inconsistencies
    ... the ontology would then become a normative document
    ... I think it's probably reasonable to define the ontology as
    our normative basis (rather than xml schema)
    ... we also have to decide on a name/versioning approach

    james: what's the best approach to propose properties/concepts
    to be added to odrl?

    renato: we should start using the mailing list more often

    james: e.g. it would be nice to have a top level link to the
    target rather than referring to it in each
    permission/prohibition seperately

    benws: james, you might should root that in a uc

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to say that sounds like an issue

    benws: we might want to reconsider whether we really want to
    use an ontology as normative basis for our language

    phila: the action tracker is also an issue tracker

    <phila> issue: The number of times we need to refer to the
    target

    <trackbot> Created ISSUE-1 - The number of times we need to
    refer to the target. Please complete additional details at
    <[19]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/1/edit>.

      [19] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/1/edit

    <phila> close issue-1

    <trackbot> Closed issue-1.

    <renato> q

    <james> sounds good thanks @phila

    <phila> [20]DUB Voc

      [20] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-duv/

    phila: you can put multiple examples in multiple encodings in
    the spec

    +q

    -q

    ivan: having gone through several groups having the same issues
    as ben mentioned

    <ivan> [21]http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/

      [21] http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/

    ivan: [explaining how web-annotation group handled that issue
    -> json(-ld) based]

    mmcrober: the current ontology document is pretty RDF skewed
    ... I think we could beef up the ontology document pretty
    straight forward once we have the underlying links/connections
    to the other specs

    ivan: the real description of the model is only done once in
    the json-ld spec
    ... we do not repeat the human prose

F2F meeting

    <renato> [22]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Attending_F2F1

      [22] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Attending_F2F1

    renato: if you know that you'll be able to attend the f2f
    meeting, please add your name

    <victor> In the next call, I would like to see dicussed the
    need of a test bed / compliance document (or section within
    existing documents).

    <victor> will post in the list

    <victor> ciao!

    <james> thanks.

    <phila> Thanks everyone, bye.

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Mo to provide use case from research and
    education domain [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: phila to gather use cases from BigDataEurope
    project [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Renato to go to the ODRL CG to ask for use cases
    [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action02]

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action01
      [24] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action03
      [25] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action02

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [26]Accept last week's minutes
     2. [27]Anyone (outside the group) can contribute use cases
        without there being an IP impediment, however it's alwys
        best to contribute on public-poe-comments@w3.org

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 4 April 2016 13:09:37 UTC