[Minutes] 2016-04-18

Today's minutes are at https://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-poe-minutes with 
the text version below.

Thanks to James for scribing.

   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

18 Apr 2016

    [2]Agenda

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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Sabrina, benws, ivan, james, jo, paulj, phila, renato,
           smyles, victor, michaelS

    Regrets
           Mo, Caroline, Serena

    Chair
           Renato

    Scribe
           james

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Use Cases
          2. [6]Use Case 01
      * [7]Summary of Action Items
      * [8]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <renato> ivan...will u join us on the call?

    <phila> scribe: james

    <renato> [9]https://www.w3.org/2016/04/11-poe-minutes

       [9] https://www.w3.org/2016/04/11-poe-minutes

    getting a lot of noise

    <phila> agenda:
    [10]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160418

      [10] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160418

    <jo> scribe: james

    RESOLUTION: Accepted last week's minutes

    <michaelS> +1

    <renato> [11]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases

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

Use Cases

    First item: use cases

    <phila> renato: We have 3 use cass so far, more are promised

    Use cases from victor and phil

    Renato: Going to look at use cases in more detail

    <phila> ivan: There is a group related to this in the BSIG

    <phila> ... mainly US-based industrial get together of the
    publishing world. They have a group on rights, rights
    management etc.

    <phila> ... they promised me that they'd come with some use
    cases

    Ivan: BISG book publishing world, Ivan has been talking to
    regarding use cases, hopefully something will be forthcoming.
    ... would be good if one of their members joined this group

    thanks

    <michaelS> [12]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases

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

    <michaelS> [13]http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/

      [13] http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/

    michaelS: discusses workflow for requirements

    renato: if deliverable, needs to end up in Github. Wiki is good
    for scratch area.
    ... working group can decide what it prefers

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to comment on editorial role/process

    <ivan> +1 to Jo

    <phila> Jo is correct

    jo: feel that its upto the Editor. Role of Editor is to gather
    the requirements by any means and with consensus with group.
    Editor to find methodology, as long as the group can work along

    <phila> +1 to what Jo is saying

    <phila> Again, +1 to Jo

    renato: Formal note, or happy editing wiki?

    jo: formal note preferred

    simonstey: important to have a formal note

    <benws> +1 to jo and Simon

    <phila> And it's in the charter
    [14]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/charter#deliverables

      [14] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/charter#deliverables

    phila: There is wriggle room, this first draft could be a
    primer. But thinks we need formal note, cite where they came
    from if possible. Trail is useful, feeds into requirements
    verification.

Use Case 01

    <phila> [15]UC 01

      [15] 
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#POE.UC.01_Permissions_and_obligations_for_language_resources

    michaelS: What is meant by standard license?

    victor: a templated offer

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about cascading licenses

    michaelS: so cc for example, is this template or not.

    phila: cascading license, akin to CSS where you change just a
    couple of necessary values

    victor: yes.

    phila: is this a machine inherited thing, or just filling in
    gaps

    victor: simple
    ... simple process, just fill in blanks rather

    <phila> james: CC weas mentioned earlier, how a single licence
    (policy cf offer)

    <phila> james: An offer would be a set if permissions and
    obligations, which is transacted upon and turned into an
    agreement.

    <phila> ... CC is broader, not sure how that fits in. I know
    there is a CC profile in ODRL

    <phila> victor: Not I understood the question correctly. Why is
    the ODRL profile not sufficient?

    <phila> james: It may be, but the workflow we have at the
    moment is that the offer is transformed into an agreement. I
    wonder whether we need to be clearer about the terminology

    <phila> james: People think in terms of an open statement, then
    thare the offers that you need to agree to before processding.

    <phila> ... Could be one worflow or multiple ines

    <phila> victor: Not thought about that. We have software that
    writes ODRL agreements, they could perhaps be digitally signed

    <phila> benws: Surely an offer becomes an agreement after it's
    signed?

    <phila> james: That's what we're working with in our workflow

    <phila> benws: Might be worth asking the WG - if you want
    something legally binding, it has to be through an agreement.

    <james_> sorry dropped out

    <james_> smyles: asked question: editor missed this

    <james_> victor: could not express everything.. ?

    <james_> smyles: payment varying may be outside of ODRL

    <james_> jo: Are we assuming POE is for announcing permission
    and obligations, or a negotiation system

    <james_> Templates are useful and powerful, but stepping into
    realm of negotiation system, and do we have an appetite or not?

    <james_> renato: we did look into this many years ago
    (negotiation).

    <james_> renato: ... previously negotiation was offline and
    spec did not go into the details.

    <victor> I have stopped hearing Phil. Is it only me?

    <benws> I hear him

    <renato> Phil is loud and clear

    <victor> ok. i hear again. thanks.

    <james_> phila: The discussion of legal enforcement goes beyond
    our remit. It does not mean what is expressed with the output
    of this group can not be used to do just that.

    <james_> phila: Legal stuff is a different level, and probably
    beyond our skill set .. Legal.

    <james_> michaelS: For online news, implicit agreement
    necessary, otherwise too slow for such a use case

    <james_> jo: Its made clear Legal Enforcement is out of scope.
    But what are we trying to achieve, can we make it clearer.

    <james_> jo: Are we broadcasting the statements, or is the
    basis of negotiation and bi-party agreements

    <jo> is it possible to have an exchange of the form:

    <jo> "Dear Pig, are you willing to sell for one shilling Your
    ring?"

    <jo> Said the Piggy, "I will."

    <jo>
    [16]http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detai
    l/43188

      [16] 
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/43188

    <james_> phila: Keep the legal out of spec, T&C's are on top,

    <james_> renato: Implementations can layer the legal agreements
    on top

    <james_> benws: Is it keep the legal out of spec, or keep
    Enforcement out of spec?

    <simonstey> doesn't the precise meaning of "legally binding"
    also depend on individual countries (their legislations) ?

    <james_> phila: Is the charter clear enough, the boundary on
    where we tread.

    <james_> renato: Can use cases flush out the boundaries, we can
    pick and choose which ones we cover and do not.

    <phila> +1 to detailed user cases

    <james_> benws: Use case also help clarify what we are building
    as per Jo's question

    <Sabrina> +1 to Renato's suggestion to wait until we have uses
    cases

    <james_> renato: We need more detail on Use Case 01
    particularly on the Abilities listed

    <james_> renato: Victor are you able to give more details?

    <james_> victor: yes

    <james_> michaelS: How could we communicate about use cases
    between calls?

    <renato> ACTION: victor add more example Use Cases for
    POE.UC.01 [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-poe-minutes.html#action01]

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-poe-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Add more example use cases for
    poe.uc.01 [on Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel - due 2016-04-25].

    <victor> +1 to michael

    <james_> renato: emails on community list

    <james_> renato: We will continue with some more use case
    analysis next week

    <renato> [18]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements

      [18] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements

    <james_> renato: How do we go about actually analysing
    requirements

    <james_> renato: on actions, all to do with use cases

    <james_> renato: need more use cases, please submit, hopefully
    by end of this month

    <james_> renato: AIB?

    <james_> renato: AOB

    <james_> renato: meeting closed

    <james_> thanks all

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: victor add more example Use Cases for POE.UC.01
    [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-poe-minutes.html#action01]

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-poe-minutes.html#action01

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [20]Accepted last week's minutes

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 18 April 2016 13:19:56 UTC