[Minutes] 2016-06-13

The minutes from today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/06/13-poe-minutes.

Thanks to Victor for scribing this week.

Text version below...

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

13 Jun 2016

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160613

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/13-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           renato, phila, benws, Sabrina, Jo, Simon, James, Mo,
           Patrick, Brian, Sabrina, Serena

    Regrets
           michael, caroline

    Chair
           renato

    Scribe
           victor

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Approve last meeting minutes
          2. [6]Spec Name proposal
          3. [7]Use cases
          4. [8]Use Case Update
          5. [9]WG Tracker
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      * [11]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

Approve last meeting minutes

    <phila> [12]https://www.w3.org/2016/06/06-poe-minutes

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

    (thank)

    RESOLUTION: Last week's minutes approved

    RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes

Spec Name proposal

    RESOLUTION: this topic is postposed until the next week

Use cases

Use Case Update

    benws2: Should we discuss the requirements one by one?
    ... I want to discuss the requirements derived from my
    contribution, on Complex Constraints (constraints on
    constraints)

    <renato> [13]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements

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

    <simonstey> 1.3.18

    <simonstey> 1.3.1.8

    benws2: I am not clear if the 1.3.8 is a new Requirement or
    not.

    <simonstey> +q

    renato: As it is formulated, this is to vague as to be a
    Requirement.

    <mmcrober> it's not actually a prohibition, it's a constrained
    grant, I think

    renato: "Express complex constraints such as 'No use in UK
    after 7 days' " is the conjunction of two constraints.

    simonstey: The boolean operators OR/AND were already described
    in a nonnormative section of ODRL2.1

    renato: They were named as "extended relations", perhaps being
    the same as "complex constraint".

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Booleans and rules

    <mmcrober> renato: "no use in the UK or after 7 days" you could
    actually do (geographical prohibition + temporally-limited
    usage grant), but something more complex could be harder

    <simonstey>
    [14]https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/#section-5 ->
    4.1 extended relations

      [14] https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/#section-5

    phila: Please do note that we are not defining a rule language,
    as stated in the charter.

    ivan: I disagree with Phil. Having a requirement based on a Use
    Case is perfectly useful and good to have. At the end of the
    discussions, we can say certain Requirements will not be
    satisfied. But they can be material for a later work.

    <mmcrober> ivan: +1

    <simonstey> +q

    simonstey: we should keep the requirements we can all agree on,
    and we should discuss more on them.

    ISSUE: Should requirements be limited to those that we plan to
    fulfill?

    <trackbot> Created ISSUE-8 - Should requirements be limited to
    those that we plan to fulfill?. Please complete additional
    details at
    <[15]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/8/edit>.

      [15] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/8/edit

    <simonstey>
    [16]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Temporal_Cons
    traint

      [16] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Temporal_Constraint

    benws2: I would like to discuss the next requiremen t1.3.2.11,
    temporal constraints
    [17]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Temporal_Cons
    traint

      [17] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Temporal_Constraint

    <mmcrober> renato - does the ODRL interpretation of
    xsd:dateTime agree with XSD's?

    renato: there is a term to talk about a recurringly occuring
    event

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about time

    renato: Example: "Set a temporal constraint (ex. after some
    date) for the exercise of the object of the odrl:action
    predicate" --> the problem with the example is about "when does
    the embargo start?"

    <phila> [18]OWL Time update (Editor's draft)

      [18] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/

    what about existing, older ontologies like
    [19]https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/ ?

      [19] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/

    <simonstey>
    [20]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Reference_to_
    Source_License

      [20] 
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Reference_to_Source_License

    victor: I do note that other time ontologies exist

    <simonstey> +q

    (thanks phila!)

    renato: Regarding the requirement
    [21]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Reference_to_
    Source_License , at the moment ODRL can relate to a license but
    not link

      [21] 
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Reference_to_Source_License

    <mmcrober> +q

    simonstey: policy may inherit from asset

    (I made an error. learning how to correct it...)

    benws2: this might be a different problem for each of the
    serializations

    simonstey: this is more of a semantic relation

    <simonstey>
    [22]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Guidance_on_R
    ights_Assignments_through_Aggregation_and_Derivation

      [22] 
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Guidance_on_Rights_Assignments_through_Aggregation_and_Derivation

    benws2: The next requirement i want to discuss is 1.3.4.5
    [23]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Guidance_on_R
    ights_Assignments_through_Aggregation_and_Derivation
    ... derivations and aggregations of datasets are very common,
    and I would like to have automatically a compliant policy for
    the derivative resource

      [23] 
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Guidance_on_Rights_Assignments_through_Aggregation_and_Derivation

    <simonstey> +q

    renato: there should be a "good practices" document

    <simonstey> -q

    <Sabrina> +1 for best practices guide

    renato: the section on processing rules is actually about
    having best practices

    <simonstey> +q

    benws2: In this particular point, I would like to check with a
    lawyer that this is the right thing to do. If you aggregate two
    datasets you can automatically create a license including the
    previous permissions. This is obvious for me, as a computer
    scientist, but should be checked with a lawyer.

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to witter on about tools

    jo: best practices are related to particular tasks

    benws2: actual adopters of ODRL will have specific problems
    they would like to have guidance in.

    simonstey: An ODRL primer can fulfill this need for guidance.

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about a test suite as
    complement to Primer

    <jo> One should have a view as to what kinds of tools could or
    should be developed to carry out tasks related to ODRL and this
    informs the nature of BEst Practice statements

    phila: atomic elements of licenses have been mapped into
    digital expressions. this can be arguable, but stating the
    provenance, the problem vanishes: "Lawyer X says that...."
    ... primer and testsuite are all the same if perceived as
    elements towards granting conformance

    benws2: Next requirement to be discussed is 1.3.4.6

    <phila>
    [24]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Guidance_on_S
    pecifying_Subsets

      [24] 
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Guidance_on_Specifying_Subsets

    benws2: I want to express "This policy applies to all the
    members of this collection, or "to the results of this query"".
    This is the sense of the requirement
    ([25]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Guidance_on_
    Specifying_Subsets)

      [25] 
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Guidance_on_Specifying_Subsets)

    james: there is another similar requirement

    benws2: we have to make sure that the same requirement, if
    coming from different UCs, is not repeated

    simonstey: some requirements are still pending to be processed.
    and yes, some are overlapping, so not many new requirements are
    to be expected.

    renato: requirements should be sorted and categorized by the
    next call
    ... message to all participants: please help inasmuch as needed
    in this task

    <scribe> ACTION: Use Case editors to integrate the
    contributions [recorded in
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2016/06/13-poe-minutes.html#action01]

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/13-poe-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Error finding 'Use'. You can review and register
    nicknames at <[27]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/users>.

      [27] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/users

WG Tracker

    <renato>
    [28]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/pendingreview

      [28] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/pendingreview

    <phila> action-11

    <trackbot> action-11 -- Stuart Myles to Add a template use case
    -- due 2016-05-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [29]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/11

      [29] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/11

    <phila> close action-11

    <trackbot> Closed action-11.

    <renato> [30]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open

      [30] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open

    renato: there were open actions for mo, ben and phila

    <mmcrober> close action-1

    <trackbot> Closed action-1.

    <phila> close action-1

    <trackbot> Closed action-1.

    mo: my action has been done.

    phila: I expect to get feedback from bigdataeurope
    ... regrets for the next week

    <renato> [31]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/raised

      [31] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/raised

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to raise an AOB just before we close

    renato: four issues had already been raised
    [32]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/raised

      [32] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/raised

    <phila> [33]SDS Voc

      [33] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/

    phila: I announce a Workshop in Amsterdam on 30/11/2016
    [34]https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/ , on content
    negotiation: we will be able to specify "I want ODRL2.1 in
    JSON, or in XML, or in RDF"
    ... I am open to receive candidates to become PC members.

      [34] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/

    renato: remember TPAC, where a f2f meeting will be held

    <james> thanks

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Use Case editors to integrate the contributions
    [recorded in
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2016/06/13-poe-minutes.html#action01]

      [35] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/13-poe-minutes.html#action01

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [36]Last week's minutes approved
     2. [37]Accept last week's minutes
     3. [38]this topic is postposed until the next week

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 13 June 2016 13:08:46 UTC