[Minutes] 2016-08-22

The minutes of today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/08/22-poe-minutes with the text snapshot below. 
Thanks to Michael for taking care of most of my scribing duty.



   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

22 Aug 2016

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160822

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/08/22-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           renato, phila, Serena, michaelS, sabrina, CarolineB

    Regrets
           James, Ben, Victor

    Chair
           renato

    Scribe
           michaelS, phila

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]UCR
          2. [6]UC.03
          3. [7]UC.06
          4. [8]UC.08
          5. [9]Actual Requirements
          6. [10]Issues and Actions
          7. [11]AOB
      * [12]Summary of Action Items
      * [13]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

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

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

    <phila> scribe: michaelS

    <phila> scribeNick: michaelS

    TOPIC minutes last call - 8 August 2016

    <renato> approve minutes: last meeting minutes

    <renato> [15]https://www.w3.org/2016/08/08-poe-minutes

      [15] https://www.w3.org/2016/08/08-poe-minutes

    <phila> scribe: phila

    <scribe> scribeNick: phila

    +0 (not present

    RESOLUTION: Minutes of 8 August arrpoved

UCR

    renato: We've been going through these for the last few weeks
    and trying to work out what the reqs would be from them.
    ... There are 4 sets of UCs left
    ... One from Mo, 3 from phila, one from James
    ... Only Phil is here so we need to talk about those

    <Brian_Ulicny> Has the Webex info changed? I can't log in.

    <michaelS> scribe: michaelS

    <renato> UC.03

    <renato> [16]https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#embargoedDataset

      [16] https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#embargoedDataset

UC.03

    <Brian_Ulicny> Says meeting is canceled on Webex using old
    link.

    phila: outlined the use case

    <renato> Brian...click on link from here:
    [17]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160822

      [17] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160822

    phila: I publish my data now and make it available under a new
    policy a specific period later

    <renato> [18]https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#relTimeConstraint

      [18] https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#relTimeConstraint

    phila: the dates are relative dates, relative to the date of a
    first publishing

    <simonstey> +q

    smyles: will the data be published now and the future date be
    added

    p

    phila: the future date will be added as an intention, not as
    strict statement

    <simonstey> -q

    smyles: a news embargo is different: the permission to publish
    later is added at the time of the initial publication

    renato: this may relate to provenence considerations

    phila: complex would be: a policy A expires on date 1 and a
    second policy B which starts on date 1+1.

    <simonstey> +

    <simonstey> +q

    phila: the first policy should not be stricly related to policy
    B

    simonstey: feels that can be solved this way: having a time
    constraint closing on date 1 and a permission starting on date
    1 +1day, all in one policy
    ... a relative statement could be "the permission B gets active
    after constraint X has expired"

    <simonstey> primer ;)

    phila: sound interesting, will we explain somewhere that this
    can be done already with ODRL
    ... such use cases should be documented somewhere - I need this
    for my project

    <simonstey> +q

    <simonstey> -q

    <simonstey> +1 to renato's comment

UC.06

    <renato> UC.06 [19]https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#openPhacts

      [19] https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#openPhacts

    phila: explained the use case
    ... all what OpenPHACTS does is making the user aware where the
    data come from and the source must be made explicit

    <simonstey> +q

    phila: his concern is about merging policies about different
    data sources

    <simonstey> -q

    phila: any combination should be made clear

    <phila> michaelS: Each policy comes with an asset

    <phila> ... Do we have something to establish relationships
    between assets

    <phila> ... as a policy may relate to multiple assets

    <phila> renato: We don't have a way of describing those
    relationships

    <phila> ... they're outside the scope of ODRL at the moment

    renato: no, we don't have something for that purpose

    smyles: the UC has more to do how we want to merge different
    policies
    ... what are the rules for processing multiple policies

    phila: We have to expose what the original asset creators had
    defined
    ... e.g. three sources provide images and they are licensed as
    a package.
    ... and a combined policy is applied to the package

    <phila> michaelS: That raises the question of where are the
    rules appluies for combining policies?

    <phila> ... What Stuart said is how should this be processed on
    the receiver says

    <phila> ... Phil says there might be a package with a combined
    policy.#

    <phila> ... I think there should be a set of policies or a
    combined policy. If there is a combined one then no more needs
    to be said.

    <phila> ... the party that creates the combined policy takes
    the risk of merging it correctly.

    renato: a merged policy may point at the original policies

    phila: this is more a provenance issue than a POE issue

    sabrina: This reminded her of other use cases: if multiple data
    sets are added to a new asset the original policies should be
    trackable

    <Brian_Ulicny> I agree with Sabrina: provenance and time are
    very important for real world permissions.

    sabrina: the merged policies should have temporal constraints
    and governance data

    phila: agreed to Sabrina: these two facets should be discussed,
    either clarified or added for ODRL

    renato: will keep track of that

UC.08

    <renato> [20]https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#atomicLicense

      [20] https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#atomicLicense

    phila: Explained the UC in detail

    sabrina: Simon and she are working in this area

    phila: looks forward to discuss that UC with them on 30
    September in Vienna
    ... hope to get more specific requirements - coming then back
    to ODRL

Actual Requirements

    renato: No more contributors of UCs are present at this call

    yes

    <phila> scribe: phila

    scribe: Ben was working on this - did he talk to you, Simon?

    <simonstey> no /:

    <simonstey> but I can take over

    michaelS: What was he working on exactly?

    renato: We've talked about draft reqs, we've captured a few of
    them in the minutes, we want to get the reqs into the wiki
    ... that misses a lot of the context. We want to document the
    requirements in the UCR
    ... So we can discuss and agree/not on them

    michaelS: So the wiki requirements is the initial target

    renato: Yes, not the ED just yet

    michaelS: I've checked, this doc hasn't changed since 23 June

    renato: So we can maybe go back and look for these
    ... What I'll do then is go through tle most recent meetins and
    note the discussion and note the consensus on what the reqs
    were
    ... Any otehr commnets on use cases and requirements?

    [None]

Issues and Actions

    renato: No new ones recently

    phila: Have his reasons for not being able to complete
    action-12

    close action-12

    <trackbot> Closed action-12.

    sabrina: I spoke to Ben last week and the end result is that
    I'll be at TPAC

    renato: Any change needed to UC 12?

    sabrina: No, I think it's all about the provenance aspect we
    were talking about earlier
    ... So I think TPAC is the place for this, So we can close that
    action

    close action-21

    <trackbot> Closed action-21.

AOB

    renato: We have a draft agenda for TPAC

    <renato> TPAC agenda

    <renato> [21]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:TPAC2016

      [21] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:TPAC2016

    renato: Any comments on that?
    ... We have prov on the agenda coming from today.
    ... BAsic plan is to go through the requirements on day 1
    ... So clear underdstanding about changes to be made
    ... And any other new work that we haven't covered yet?
    ... Things like formal semantics, primer, common licneces
    ... And then Friday more about actual design choices.
    ... So that's the rough break down
    ... Also note that the Digital Publishing IG wants to join us
    on Friday to present their use cases.
    ... Includes news from BSIG
    ... I'm giving a talk to them on Tuesday on POE
    ... Might get some new UCs from that

    phila: It's only 4 weeks ...
    ... When might there be noew publications after TPAC?

    michaelS: Next milestone is LCCR in April

    phila: That means you're finished :-)

    renato: If we leave Lisbon with clarity then...
    ... 2 months for the first iteration of changes
    ... so end Nov

    phila: Then with another iteration in, say Feb, that gets you
    to LCCR in April

    renato: If no more commnets on TPAC - any other OB?

    [None]

    renato: So we'll close the meeting there
    ... Thanks everyone

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [22]Minutes of 8 August arrpoved

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 22 August 2016 13:03:03 UTC