[Minutes] 2016-07-11

The minutes of this week's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/07/11-poe-minutes with a text snapshot below.

Summary:
- Brian to work with Ben to improve UCs 9 & 14;
- Ben/TR to make any suggestion for a different name than ODRL ASAP;
- Vocab editors to implement grouping script;
- vote on all three going to FPWD as a package this time next week.


   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

11 Jul 2016

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160711

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/07/11-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           renato, phila, michaelS, CarolineB, smyles, victor

    Regrets
           Ivan, Serena, Ben, Sabrina, Simon

    Chair
           renato

    Scribe
           phila

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Approve last week's minutes
          2. [6]Use Case document
          3. [7]Issues and Actions
          4. [8]AOB
      * [9]Summary of Action Items
      * [10]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

Approve last week's minutes

    <renato> [11]https://www.w3.org/2016/06/27-poe-minutes

      [11] https://www.w3.org/2016/06/27-poe-minutes

    PROPOSED: Accept minutes of 27 June

    RESOLUTION: Accept minutes of 27 June

    <renato> [12]https://www.w3.org/2016/07/04-poe-minutes

      [12] https://www.w3.org/2016/07/04-poe-minutes

    renato: There is a note of last week's meeting that wasn't a
    formal one (doe to agenda not being sent out in time)

Use Case document

    renato: Invites michaelS to comment

    michaelS: We have the Use cases and reqs pages in the wiki
    ... We said we needed more info in some of hte use cases and we
    have refrelcted those updates.
    ... Next step is to continue with the requirements.
    ... Some open discussions about the requirements.

    renato: Any further commnets on the doc?

    victor: Sabrina isn't here but she said she needed more
    elaboration on UCs 9 and 14
    ... see
    [13]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2016Jul/
    0016.html

      [13] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2016Jul/0016.html

    renato: Yes, but this is an evolving document.

    victor: I think a few extra lines are needed.

    <renato>
    [14]http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/#poe.uc.09-base-product

      [14] http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/#poe.uc.09-base-product

    <renato>
    [15]http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/#poe.uc.14-a-vote-for-extended
    -relations

      [15] 
http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/#poe.uc.14-a-vote-for-extended-relations

    renato: These are short, yes.
    ... So the question is do we need to put more words on them
    before publication?

    victor: If Ben can do that in the week then this won't delay
    things

    Brian_Ulicny: Seeks clarity on what's needed
    ... I can circle around with Ben this week...

    renato: Please do that. I don't want to hold up the document.
    We can add to the doc in future.
    ... Yes, please ask him to add a couple of extra lines

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about timing

    phila: Talks about time line. Doc needs to be ready on
    Wednesday if it's to be published on Thursday.

    renato: We were hoping that the 3 docs (UCs, model and vocabs
    all get published at the same time)

    <CarolineB> phila: why not wait until changes are made since
    ther eis a builtin delay for all

    phila: If the docs are going out together, and we're not going
    to publish those 3 together this week, then there's no
    advantage in taking a conditional vote today.

    renato: Do we want to publish all 3 together?

    victor: I have a minor objection to publishing all three
    together. The model and vocabs are not to do with the use cases
    since the UC doc is about new UCs

    renato: Because we are starting with an existing base line doc,
    ODRL 2.1, we are not going to put out the use cases and say
    that we have solved them all in the model and vocab at the smae
    time.
    ... The UCR tells the community what we're planning to do -
    enhancements to the ODRL specs - and we're also publishing the
    starting point base lines specs.
    ... Publishing at the same time doesn't imply that the model
    and vocab addresses all the UCs

    victor: I understand the charter is to lift from the existing
    base line.
    ... But there are some improvements that can be made on the
    ODRL model that have to be discussed and the model and vocab
    have to be modified by the UCR
    ... What is the problem in pblishing the UCR now?
    ... I just sent a mail to the list with comments on what we can
    do to improve ODRL. It's a pity if we don't consider that.
    ... My question is, is there any problem delaying the model
    publication by a month?

    michaelS: It would be good to have such a pakcage as it think
    it gives a better overview.
    ... I see a close link between the model and the vocab.
    ... The vocab adds salt to the basics of the model.
    ... If we agree that it is required to have a discussion on the
    model before we publish, then OK to publish the UC now.
    ... How much work is required to publish the vocab document?

    renato: Technically we could publish it today. We're waiting
    for a change to the back end script that helps with the
    grouping.
    ... Then the question becomes, do we want to discuss the model
    first?

    victor: regarding the vocab, it's not so immediate. We have to
    merge a bunch of existing documents and I don't see how to do
    that.

    <renato> [16]https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/

      [16] https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/

    renato: We've done that, we haven't just shared it yet.
    ... In that doc we have all the terms
    ... We haven't linked from the wiki yet.
    ... We're waiting for one more change.
    ... but we have done the merge.
    ... we added the JSON, the XML, the scnearios etc.
    ... actions for permissions, actions for duties etc. Those are
    the groups we're thinking of. That's a change that I hope we
    can do within a day or so.
    ... Therefore we can have all 3 ready next week.
    ... Looking at your mail, I'm happy to work through. That will
    happen within the rest of the process over the coming months.
    ... If we say let's wait a month, so we can address those
    issues, that's an arbitrary time. We want to say here's the
    base line, here are the UCs that we're going to look at.
    ... Hopefully that triggers more input from the community.

    <scribe> ACTION: Brian to work with Ben on improving UCs 9 and
    14 [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2016/07/11-poe-minutes.html#action01]

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2016/07/11-poe-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-18 - Work with ben on improving ucs 9
    and 14 [on Brian Ulicny - due 2016-07-18].

    renato: We want to send out a whole package.

    victor: I'm afraid that if the WD is published now, issues
    won't be addressed.

    renato: Don't worry about that. They will be discussed over the
    coming 12 months.
    ... These are the first public WD. There will be other
    versions.
    ... There's a whole maturity level to go through.

    phila: Talks about waiting until the package is complete next
    week.

    victor: I think Ben was assigned to come up with a new name.
    That was a while ago.
    ... This issue should have been closed before publication.

    renato: That has been an action item for Ben. He's not had time
    to address it.
    ... I think I'm right that even if we call it ODRL and decide
    later to change it then we will be able to.

    victor: It doesn't give a good impression to change the name
    after people have reviewed it under the old name.

    renato: I agree, but we don't have a proposal for an
    alternative.

    phila: I hope Brian can talk to Ben this week and see if he/TR
    can make progress on that.

    renato: So we'll vote on all three next week.

    <victor> +1

    renato: If nothing changes between now and next week, will you
    be OK with publishing? Should the model be published.
    ... The FQWP is just the beginning

    phila: phila Rambles on about process and why you can be sure
    that the doc will reflect commnets received.

    renato: We'll vote on the model next week, but does anyone have
    any commnet on the doc now?

    michaelS: There was one detail...

    issue-18

    <trackbot> Sorry, but issue-18 does not exist.

    <renato> [18]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/18

      [18] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/18

    michaelS: The wording ... issue description ... is unclear to
    me.
    ... Ah, hang on... *when* is the key word.
    ... I got it on the 5th time#

    renato: We can probably change that word.

Issues and Actions

    renato: I think Simon's issue 17 is complete

    issue-17

    <trackbot> Sorry, but issue-17 does not exist.

    renato: Some of us are using the GH issue tracker which allows
    us to link from the doc to the GH issue tracker.

AOB

    renato: A reminder about TPAC. September is nearly here.
    ... We can request a speaker phone for the room.
    ... But only if epople will want to dia in remotely.

    <renato> [19]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Attending_F2F1

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

    renato: There's a section there to show if you want to dial in.

    [Meeting Adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Brian to work with Ben on improving UCs 9 and 14
    [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2016/07/11-poe-minutes.html#action01]

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2016/07/11-poe-minutes.html#action01

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [21]Accept minutes of 27 June

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 11 July 2016 12:53:26 UTC