- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:37:58 +0100
- To: W3C POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of this week's meeting are at www.w3.org/2016/07/18-poe-minutes
Note that it was decided to publish all three docs under the current
ODRL name. However, the naming issue is not closed and that future
versions may use a different name. The chairs are keen to hear the views
of all members of the WG.
Next week's meeting will go ahead as normal.
Snapshot of today's minutes below.
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
18 Jul 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160718
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/07/18-poe-irc
Attendees
Present
renato, benws2, phila, CarolineB, smyles, victor
Regrets
Michael, Sabrina, ivan
Chair
benws
Scribe
phila
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Last week's minutes
2. [6]UCR
3. [7]Information model
4. [8]ODRL Vocabulary & Expression
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: phila
<scribe> scribeNick: phila
Last week's minutes
PROPOSAL: Accept last week's minutes
[11]https://www.w3.org/2016/07/11-poe-minutes
https://www.w3.org/2016/07/11-poe-minutes
+1
<benws2> +1
<renato> +1
<smyles> +1
<James> +1
<CarolineB> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes
[12]https://www.w3.org/2016/07/11-poe-minutes
[12] https://www.w3.org/2016/07/11-poe-minutes
<Brian_Ulicny> +1
PROPOSAL: NAme change
benws2: I don't think we can have an acronym that we can't
expand.
... if we expand ODRL we get Open Digital Rights Language
... The term'rights' cuts out the opportunity to express things
like privacy and regulatory controls that I think are in scope.
... So my suggestion for our alternative name is to stick to
Permissions and Obligations Expression (POE).
... That covers privacy, controls, licences.
... I just came off a call with people building a transactions
platform suggesting they had probelms with ODRL.
... It was a conflation with ODRL's ability to express and
enforce. They assumed they were the same thing.
... The name ODRL implies this.
... In my own work, it's become important to continually say
that ODRL is about the epxressions, and not enforcement.
... I keep having to make the argument, which is why I like POE
as it's in the name.
... hence my proposal that we should use ODRL, we shouldn't use
Open Digital Rights Language, and I think POE is amuch clearer
and crispter statement of what we're trying to achieve.
<renato> +q
renato: Surprise... I disagree. The name doesn't restrict the
scope. It's just a term. The name of the spec doesn't imply the
full scope of the spec.
... The name of the spec doesn't have to cover the full scope
or you end up with long names.
... The scope is determined in the charter.
... ODRL has always tried to ... we were a rights expression
language. We've never been part of the enforcement side.
... Not part of our motiviation.
... Surprised that people would conclude that ODRL somehow
supported enforcement.
... We have to look at the branding. The brand has been used
for the past 15 years. It's used throughout differnet
communities. Part of RightsML that IPTC uses.
... (Open Mobile Alliance)
... Namespace id has ODRL in it. If we change that then every
existing system will be broken.
... I don't see that changing the name will address the issues
raised about scope.
phila: Creating a new namespace is a way to ensure that
existing implementations don't break
CarolineB: My experience... in 2 years at the Copyright Hub.
We've had to spend a lot of time expalining that
copyrighthub.org.uk is not only about UK
... and we don't hold a lot of data.
... Perception is a big part of the job.
... The acronym should either represent the scope or be
entirely meaningless.
... That's what I see from responses to the name Copyright Hub.
benws2: I think we might have stumbled on a name in that POE
captures the scope of what we're doing.
... I think we can capture our scope in the name.
... I'd amplify what CarolineB has just said.
... My ambition is that we have thousands of implemenattions -
and perception drives that.
... I was amazed when I was told that there are big probs with
ODRL. I was suprprised they'd heard of it but actually the prob
was their assumption about what it does.
... So it's important to say that it's about expressions and
not enforcement.
... on the issue of the existing base.
... If people stay with ODRL 2.1 then they stay there. No
change.
... Or they can change to the new one.
renato: We were looking at what the impact changes will have.
We can't use the name change to force a change.
... You can add new terms to the existign namespace.
... I don't think it's the right decision to make the change...
[Confused]
... If someone says this is POE and not about enforcement,
that's no clearer than ODRL not being about enforcement.
... To change the namespace threatens existing implementations
... We've also ways called ODRL, ODRL - it's just 4 characters
benws2: My ideas are noit based on a conversation but a lot of
experience.
... If Open Digital Rights Language is misleading, then that's
interesting. If you use an acronym, people will find out what
it means and they'll find it.
... You can't get away from that history...
renato: That doesn't mean that we go around only talking about
rights
... We call it a policy langauge
... If we could change the R to a P we would.
benws2: You could change R to Rules
<Brian_Ulicny> +q
renato: So we can have Open Digital Rules Language
CarolineB: Copyright is a toxic word. Avoiding toxicity is
good. R for rules not right is preferable.
smyles: naming is very hard for lots of reasons. From y POV we
have been working on ODRL, we've given it our own name of
RightsML
... because we thought that was clearer.
... So naming is tricky and there are mots of issues.
... I understand the desire to change the name to make it
clearer etc.
... The difficulty that I foresee is people who are not in
touch with the details of what we're discussing... I thought
you were saying that ODRL is the way to go and now we have to
switch.
... I think it would be difficult to say it's the smae thing
but with a different name.
... If we're going to change, we need to do it sooner rather
than later.
Brian_Ulicny: I think that changing the name to Open Data Rules
Language as it would clash with RIF
... RIF is much larger than we're talking about
renato: I suppose if you don't like R for rules, I've tried ti
think of otehr words that wojld fit, without much success. If
you want to keep ODRL then Rules would be the only one that
works.
... I'd only support changing the name to open digital rules
langauge
-> [13]https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl/ 2002 spec
[13] https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl/
-> [14]https://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-odrl-20020919/ Previous
[14] https://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-odrl-20020919/
<James> Open Data and Resource Licensing, is my best fudge,
feel free to ignore
phila: Neutral on name but old spec will point to old version
of 2002 and changing namespace wouldn't break old ones.
<scribe> ... New namespace might impede uptake for some
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: name of WG is not ODRL as it has problems
renato: For me, keeping the name keeps the provenance
... On backwards compatibility - there's a good change we'd
keep using the existing namespace, we can just add new terms
... Existing implementations would work with the new work.
benws2: So we're looking at a cost/benefit
... I know of RightsML and Open Mobile Alliance.
... What's the additional installed base?
renato: I was told that the OMA spec was in 1bn handsets
... a long time ago
benws2: I mean how many orgs use ODRL to do permissions and
obligations expressions
... How often do you come acorss its use?
... Copyright Hub is one
victor: We use it at UPM
... And Metashare for language resources
smyles: Prism, a standards body, have used ODRL as their rights
language but I don't have specifics
renato: Plus wants to use it.
... I don't think we can resolve this today. My suggestion is
to stick with ODRL and revisit it if we get a backlash
<James> I believe the British Library was exploring ODRL also
benws2: I think there's already a backlash.
... There was a backlas in the original constitution of this WG
... There are others here saying they don't think that ODRL is
the right way to go.
renato: The name of the WG ... we didn't want to have the word
Rights in the WG name. It was more to do with the hammering W3C
is getting over EME
... They don't want Rights in the WG name
... The specs won't have the words rights in them.
... Even if you change the name to foobar, the source within
the CG is stll apparent.
benws2: The concerns are wider than just W3C
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about process
benws2: I will go through otehrs on the Q
phila: Explains formal objection proces
smyles: I was going to ask about process and that's been
covered.
CarolineB: My feeling is that we're not ready to take a vote on
the name change, just discuss the possibility of it.
benws2: So when should we?
CarolineB: I'd feel more comfortable with others in the WG
here.
James: I see both saides of the argument. I don't like eitehr
name to be honest.
... It's essentially licensing. I see the perception problem.
... I'm not sure that changing will affect that. Since I don't
like either, I'd rather say no change.
benws2: I do take Caroline's point
phila: You can change later if you want
... If we punb, the decision then is about whetehr we publish
our docs now with the name ORDL
smyles: I think we should e-mail everyone, not just rely on the
minutes
... If we changed the name now, I'd still be saying to people
it's called X but it's really ODRL
... You can't actually escape ODRL
benws2: I am sensitive to the idea of others having gtheir say.
I will e-mail to the WG members and link to this discussion.
... I think we should go ahead with the planned publications
under the ODRL name.
<James> +1
<CarolineB> +1
<renato> +1
benws2: Can I runa straw poll to see if people think that is
the right approach
<smyles> +1
<Brian_Ulicny> +1
phila: (neutral)
benws2: That seems fairly unanimous
... In which case... I'll move on to the next agenda item.
UCR
benws2: I don't think either Michael or Simon are on the call.
action-18?
<trackbot> action-18 -- Brian Ulicny to Work with ben on
improving ucs 9 and 14 -- due 2016-07-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [15]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/18
[15] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/18
benws2: I worked with Brian to do that. I think you raised,
this victor. Any comments?
victor: I am confident that if you looked at it, it will be
clearer.
benws2: Any other comments
... Then let us take a formal vote
close action-18
<trackbot> Closed action-18.
PROPOSAL: To publish the UCR at
[16]http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/ as a FPWD
[16] http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/
<renato> +1
<benws2> +1
<CarolineB> +1
<James> +1
<Brian_Ulicny> +1
<smyles> +1
<victor> +1
RESOLUTION: To publish the UCR at
[17]http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/ as a FPWD
[17] http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/
Information model
renato: It's pretty much the smae text as the 2.1 CG report
... We've just changed it into a W3C spec, linking to the CG.
Adding a few issues
... CHanged the colours of the UML!
PROPOSAL: To publish the ODRL Information Model at
[18]http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/ as a FPWD
[18] http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/
<renato> +1
<benws2> +1
<CarolineB> +1
<smyles> +1
<Brian_Ulicny> +1
<James> +1
<victor> +1
RESOLUTION: To publish the ODRL Information Model at
[19]http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/ as a FPWD
[19] http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/
ODRL Vocabulary & Expression
James: Not a lot to say about this from my part. It's much as
it was before. It's been ordered and grouped
PROPOSAL: To publish ODRL Vocabulary & Expression at
[20]http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/ as a FPWD
[20] http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/
<renato> +1
<CarolineB> +1
<James> +1
<Brian_Ulicny> +1
<benws2> +1
<smyles> +1
<victor> I want to make a statement on my disatisfaction of not
being editor of the document, being as it is a verbatim copy of
the previous version which i edited
<victor> on despite of this, i believe the document is correct
<victor> hence +1
RESOLUTION: To publish ODRL Vocabulary & Expression at
[21]http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/ as a FPWD
[21] http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about the short URLs
phila: I would like permission to change
[22]http://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/ to
[23]http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-odrl/
[22] http://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/
[23] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-odrl/
<Brian_Ulicny> +1
phila: Any objection to that change?
<renato> +1
<benws2> +1
<CarolineB> +1
<James> +1
<smyles> +1
phila: I will add Victor as an author, but not as editor
<benws2> +1
<James> +1
phila: unless there are objections
<CarolineB> +1
renato: Suggests teasons why it's quite a differnet document
victor: I disagree, but what's your suggestion?
... I believe there is a big work behind the work done here.
This work is merged into this big new doc but iut's in here.
... The core number of hours invested are here.
renato: I've acknowledged lots of people...
victor: I disagree, I have contributed libraries, online API,
and I will severelty compromise my future work if I'm only the
the acknowledgements section.
... It's key for me and my employer that my contribuituion is
better recognised.
benws2: Can we use the term contributor
[Discussion about role of editors etc.]
renato: Then why don't we add Victor to the list of editors
... Then I porpose that we add Victor's name to the list of
editors
<benws2> +1
<James> +1
<CarolineB> +1
+1
<Brian_Ulicny> +1
<smyles> +1
<renato> +1
<renato> thanks victor, your contributions are valuable
benws2: I know we shoujld go through actions but we're out of
time
<Brian_Ulicny> I will be out next two weeks
<James> yes
<James> bye
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [24]Accept last week's minutes
https://www.w3.org/2016/07/11-poe-minutes
2. [25]To publish the UCR at http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/ as
a FPWD
3. [26]To publish the ODRL Information Model at
http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/ as a FPWD
4. [27]To publish ODRL Vocabulary & Expression at
http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/ as a FPWD
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
--
Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
Received on Monday, 18 July 2016 13:36:46 UTC