W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-poe-wg@w3.org > December 2016

[Minutes] 2016-12-12

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:43:03 +0000
To: POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <82abf90b-24d1-14e7-bd1d-79af3190d748@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-poe-minutes. Thanks to Sabrina for 
scribing. Text version below.

The substantive topic of discussion centred on Issue 61

We need to be able to apply the same policy to ~10^^8 assets without 
listing them all.

The face to face meeting is now confirmed form Thursday-Friday 18-19 May 
2017 in London (thanks to TR for hosting).

Next meeting will be Monday 9th January 2017.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year one and all.

   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

12 Dec 2016


       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161212

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-poe-irc


           benws, michaelS, phila, Brian_Ulicny, Sabrina, smyles,
           simonstey, renato





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Virtual F2F minutes approval
          2. [6]ODRL Information Model
          3. [7]F2F meeting
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      * [9]Summary of Resolutions

    <Serena> *I'm in a meeting, I cannot join on WebEx for the

    <benws> James - are you joining the webex?

    <james> trying to join webex, but having network issues

    <phila> agenda:

      [10] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161212

    <phila> chair: Ben

    <phila> scribe: Sabrina

    <phila> scribeNick: Sabrina

    <Brian_Ulicny> +1

Virtual F2F minutes approval

    <phila> [11]https://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes

      [11] https://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes

    Can we approved the meeting minutes from the virtual F2F?

    <phila> Seem fine to me

    <Serena> +1

    <michaelS> +1


    RESOLUTION: Minutes of
    [12]https://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes approved

      [12] https://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes

    Minutes approved

ODRL Information Model

    benws: Moving to the ODRL Information Model

    Ben lost connectivity... waiting for him to call back in

    Ben back

    <phila> Issue 61 [13]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/61

      [13] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/61

    Inverse target link - if you have lots of assets you are much
    more likely to point from the asset to the policy rather than
    visa versa

    Any comments?

    michaelS: We did exactly something like this in the News
    Standard. So the question is should this be a recommendation or
    rather just best practice?
    ... Shouldn't this be more advice rather than a recommendation.
    ... The question is who defines this?

    benws: We are looking for the inverse of the predicate

    michaelS: Where does this reside?

    <simonstey> +q

    <phila> phila: I'd say that dcterms:license is the way to link
    an asset to a Policy

    phila: I see what Michael is saying... I can see why people
    would use dcterms:license . It seems like the right thing to

    <phila> ... It's a commonly used predicate, see, for example,

    <Serena> +1 for dcterms:license

    simonstey: This is certainly not the inverse of ODRL:target
    ... It is very often used in blank nodes where you don't have a
    permission i.e. rule blank node.
    ... Unless we move the target from the rules to the policy I
    would not recommend an inverse relationship

    <smyles> [14]http://udfr.org/docs/onto/dct_license.html

      [14] http://udfr.org/docs/onto/dct_license.html

    <renato> (sorry - just arrived!)

    phila: You never know what type of document you get from the
    predicate. You can only find out from the MIME TYPE

    We might want to define text/ODRL

    The predicate can't tell you what you get back....

    phila: The URI has no semantics....The MIME TYPE tells you what
    the serialisation is...

    <simonstey> +q

    phila: In summary dcterms:License is ok

    <phila> phila: dcterms:License doesn't tell you what kind of
    doc you're going to get, that's the job of the MIME type.

    <phila> phila: If this Wg wants to define its own MIME type, it

    simonstey: It doesn't make sense to point from the asset to a
    single rule.... All the rules together form the license...

    phila: So you would use dcterms:license to point to the policy

    renato: If we have an asset with dcterms:license pointing to a
    policy and that policy already has an asset in it. What do we
    do? How can we handle this?

    benws: I would add them together

    <simonstey> <asset>
    dct:license/(odrl:permission|odrl:prohibition)* ?rules

    renato: Maybe we should consider the template policy -
    everything without the asset in it

    Ben back

    renato: My concern is if the policy you point to already has an
    asset, does the target URI referred to by dcterms:license would
    it overwrite the asset

    <simonstey> +q

    benws: If you have target and targeted by and an inverse
    relationship then reasoning would just add them together

    renato: Assume that we are talking about a policy?

    benws: No keep it simple and just target a rule

    renato: The minimum referable entity is a policy, we can't have
    rules on their own
    ... The policy by definition has an asset. If there are 3
    permissions then we have 3 assets. If we have an asset that
    refers to the policy what happens to the 3 assets that have
    already been defined

    benws: Is this relevant for an inverse of odrl:target

    renato: No, I am talking about something different

    <renato> (old CC/ODRL Profile):

      [15] https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/cc/

    michaelS: I recall a similar requirement in a creative commons

    smyles: dcterms:license is not a perfect fit, however I agree
    with Phil people will use it to point to a policy. There are no
    ids for permissions and restrictions

    <simonstey> +q

    benws: This requirements is about the ability to point from an
    asset to a permission. What do we think of this requirement?

    smyles: Can you describe an example of how it would be used?

    benws: If you have 10,000 assets then it is very inefficient to
    point from the policy to the assets. It is far more efficient
    to point from the asset to the permission

    renato: Does this mean the permission does not have any
    reference to the asset in it?

    benws: Yes, this would be the case

    <simonstey> odrl:Set ?

    renato: The way ODRL was modelled was - I have a policy with an
    identifier and have references to assets and rules.
    ... You could use a set

    benws: No it's not a set that it required. We want to point
    from the asset to the policy

    simonstey: If you want to define a policy that does not have a
    target you could use an odrl:set
    ... Is this an implementation issue. If you want to
    automatically evaluate the policy and you don't have an asset
    in the policy you would need some guidance as to where to look
    for the asset
    ... This might work in an inhouse scenario but not in general

    benws: You just do a query

    simonstey: But what do you query?
    ... You don't know what is pointing to the policy and therefore
    you don't know where to query

    <renato> XML encoding rules:

      [16] http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#xml

    smyles: We have the same type of requirement and we lobbied for
    this is be included in the past. Possible suggestions reference
    to it over and over again, target optional, or whatever refers
    to it
    ... I am in favour of solving this problem

    <renato> PoWder !!!

    <renato> :-)

    phila: This sounds very familiar. One set of metadata to an
    undefined thing and it is governed by whatever points to it
    ... In POWDER it was possible to do this limited by domain name
    (i.e. put an outer wall on it)

    renato: In order to solve the problem - given a policy that we
    want to use as the target for these statements - should we
    allow the policy not to have an asset in it

    <simonstey> +q

    renato: from your asset list be it 50 million of them, we don't
    have any assets in the target policy

    benws: They are implicitly there
    ... If you were to materialise the triples then indeed the
    policy would have a target

    renato: In an implementation yes

    simonstey: An agreement policy is not only about the asset
    which is referred to by the rules, actually as far as I know
    you can have multiple assets in each rule. The same for
    assigner and assignees.
    ... When you have 200 million assets you would have to repeat
    the assigner and assignee multiple times in each rule

    benws: This requirement does not refer to assigner and

    simonstey: But you would have to repeat this

    benws: Ya we would repeat asigners and assignees in the rules

    <simonstey> Must contain at least the Party entity with
    Assigner role and a Party with Assignee role. The latter being
    granted the terms of the Agreement from the former.


      [17] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-odrl/#term-Agreement

    renato: When assets that refer to policies where there is no
    asset in the policy we need to indicate that this was done on
    ... otherwise people would expect an asset

    Brian_Ulicny: Can't we use a class here

    <renato> see "Asset: the Permission entity must refer to an
    Asset (where at least one, and only one, relation value is
    target) on which the linked Action should be performed

    <renato> In the Information Model for Perms and Prohibs

    <phila> Anything that points to this policy is covered by it

    smyles: Couldn't we use a url to indicate a class. This is what
    we did at AP. We don't know the ids of the assets. We put in an
    identifier the meaning is that anything that points to this
    identifier is governed by the policy
    ... The processing engine needs to figure got if this asset is
    governed by this policy. We need an engine that can evaluate

    benws: When in doubt add a level of indirection

F2F meeting

    benws: As our hour is up, we have to bypass the other items on
    the agenda

    <Brian_Ulicny> Sorry. Have to drop.

    <phila> Proposal: F2F meeting 18-19 May 2017 in London

    renato: The F2F will now be in May - there are a number of
    events in London in May - so we propose the 18th and 19th of
    May in London

    <benws> +1

    <phila> (instead of Madrid or Vienna)

    <phila> +1

    <renato> +1


    <ivan> =1

    <smyles> +1

    <simonstey> 0

    <ivan> +1

    RESOLUTION: F2F meeting 18-19 May 2017 in London

    IPTC meeting will be held there....

    <phila> [Merry Christmas]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [18]Minutes of https://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes
     2. [19]F2F meeting 18-19 May 2017 in London

    [End of minutes]
Received on Monday, 12 December 2016 13:43:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 12 December 2016 13:43:14 UTC