[Minutes] POE WG 2016-05-09

[No substitute for the one and only Phil Archer, but for this time only I stand in for him]

The minutes of today's POE WG are to be found at https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes.html and are included as text below; with thanks to Serena for scribing.

Jo


                              - DRAFT -

 Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

09 May 2016

  [2]Agenda

     [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160509

  See also: [3]IRC log

     [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-irc

Attendees

  Present
         renato, jo, simonstey, michaelS, Serena, mmcrober,
         smyles, benws, victor, brian

  Regrets
         PhilA, Ivan, caroline

  Chair
         Renato

  Scribe
         serena

Contents

    * [4]Topics
        1. [5]name of specification
        2. [6]deliverable workplan
        3. [7]use cases
        4. [8]any other business
    * [9]Summary of Action Items
    * [10]Summary of Resolutions
    __________________________________________________________

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

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

  <simonstey> list participants

  scribe Serena

  <jo> scribe: serena

  thanks jo

  Renato: Welcome to Brian (Thompson Reuters)
  ... we hava to approve the minutes of the last meeting

  <renato> [12]https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes

    [12] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes

  RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes

  <mmcrober> +1

  <benws> +1

  <smyles> +1

  +1

  <michaelS> +1

  <victor> +1

  Renato: editors for documents have to be confirmed

  : for the information model, we propose myself and Serena as
  editors

  Renato: for the vocabulary spec, we propose myself, mmcrober,
  and James

  thanks Jo ;-)

  <michaelS> do we have the names of the Vocabl doc?

  scribe: comments from the group on these two specs

  renato: consensus on having two deliverables
  ... did you want to revisit that?

  mmcrober: yes, from memory we have reasonable arguments from
  both side

  renato: we didn't make a decision

  mmcrober: high level diagram to point to the model

  <Zakim> jo, you wanted to note that formally we need resultions
  of editors

  renato: any other comments?

  jo: raise an issue on having a single spec or not

  <simonstey> issue-2

  <trackbot> issue-2 -- Use Cases -- open

  <trackbot> [13]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/2

    [13] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/2

  <simonstey> issue-1

  <trackbot> issue-1 -- The number of times we need to refer to
  the target -- closed

  <trackbot> [14]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/1

    [14] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/1

  <simonstey> issue-3

  <trackbot> issue-3 -- Deliverables Work Plan -- open

  <trackbot> [15]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/3

    [15] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/3

  <renato> ACTION: renato add issues related to moving to one
  spec [recorded in
  [16]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes.html#action01]

    [16] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes.html#action01]

  <trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - Add issues related to moving to
  one spec [on Renato Iannella - due 2016-05-16].

  RESOLUTION: editors for the Info Model ; Renato and Serena

  <simonstey> +q

  <simonstey> -q

  <victor> +q

  <mmcrober> +1

  <smyles> +1

  <michaelS> +1

  +1

  victor: I'd like to join the work on the ontology

  renato: we can keep you as the first reserve

  <renato> PROPOSED: editors for the Vocab Expression: Renato,
  Michael, Mo, Stuart, James

  <simonstey> +1

  +1

  <smyles> +1

  <michaelS> +1

  <benws> +1

  <Zakim> jo, you wanted to make reference to mmcrober's point

  acj jo

  jo: five editors is potentially a lot

  renato: different skills from the individuals
  ... everyone contributes and will be acknowledged appropriately

  <mmcrober> +1

  <smyles> +1

  +1

  RESOLUTION: editors for the Vocab Expression: Renato, Michael,
  Mo, Stuart, James

  renato: item 2 on the agenda
  ... named of the specification

name of specification

  renato: the issue is that the new spec will be called ODRL
  information model

  mmcrober: we need a pretty strong case to change the name
  ... there is no rule stating that the name of the spec directly
  the name of the group creating the spec
  ... in favor of keeping odrl

  <simonstey> +q

  renato: any comments?

  simonstey: where does the O in ODRL came from?

  renato: there was another language for patterns and it was not
  open, the competitor was not open to emphasize ODRL was open

  <benws> +q

  renato: we added the O

  <Zakim> jo, you wanted to note that phila said there are
  specific sensitivities regarding name

  <smyles> agree with mmcrober

  jo: I suggest that what we do is that the name is ODRL for now

  <smyles> open digital riot language?

  renato: the issue is DMR is an issue for W3C, the big issue is
  the R = rights. What we did is in ODRL 2.0 there is not the
  word right in the spec. We used policy.
  ... ODRL stands for ODRL

  <jo> PROPOSAL: The standard is known as ODRL, for historical
  reasons, there is not specific meaning attached to any of the
  letters

  <mmcrober> +1

  <smyles> GNU

  RESOLUTION: We will use the name ODRL for our devliverables

  <michaelS> +1

  <smyles> we have two RESOLUTIONs

  <benws> -1

  <smyles> oh wait - one PROPOSAL, one RESOLUTION and no vote?

  <simonstey> -1

  RESOLUTION: last resolution is revoked

deliverable workplan

  renato: first public working draft as a slight modification of
  ODRL one

  mmcrober: from the last session, we have a discussion about
  having the voc RDF centric
  ... or not. The ontology doc is generated with RDF with html
  template. In transitioning, do we maintain our process?

  renato: good point, the mechanics of the spec have to be
  considered too. We just need to look at how the process works.
  Editors have to sit down and discuss it.

  benws: clarification: it makes perfect sense to have an
  RDF-centric approach, but if we want to move on we need to go
  for jason first
  ... people reading the spec will be jason minded

  smyles: jason is not a great language for modeling

  <Zakim> jo, you wanted to agree with and amplify benws's point

  <simonstey> I would suggest to use some javascript magic as in
  [17]https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/

    [17] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/

  <simonstey> to switch between the different encodings

  smyles: json is not generated from RDF. We can't commit to
  preserve any encodings. We ended up to: guidelines for any kind
  of implementation.

  renato: we would try to use our ontology to generate the voc
  spec
  ... there will be the xml, the json, the json-ld

  <benws> +1

  renato: we need to express that in the narratives of the doc
  ... fist working draft will be the starting point

  s first/first

  scribe: editors look at the doc and decide the issues to be
  discussed

use cases

  michaelS: a number of use cases have been written, I've been
  reading them, requirements should be extracted from the use
  cases, I've shared the questions with the persons editing them
  on the wiki
  ... the requirements should be clear, measurable, testable
  ... on GitHub we have the editors draft
  ... group requirements, refinement

  renato: back to the editing, benws and simonstey will join
  michaelS in editing the use cases document

  <renato> PROPOSAL: Ben and Simon will also be editors on the
  UCR NOTE

  <simonstey> +1

  +1

  <benws> +1

  <smyles> +1

  <mmcrober> +1

  RESOLUTION: Ben and Simon will also be editors on the UCR NOTE

  RESOLUTION: Ben and Simon will also be editors on the UCR NOTE

  renato: we're also looking to the other deliverables which is
  formal semantics, we're contacting people to take care of it.

  <simonstey> +q

  michaelS: the issue is how to share, in the description there
  are also requirements, should we extract the requirements from
  the description or do we ask the authors?

  simonstey: we encouraged the authors to extract the
  requirements, the editors have the power to extract new
  requirements
  ... raise an issue if you're not convinced it's a requirement
  ... the WG has to say this is truly a requirement

any other business

  renato: F2F meeting in Lisbon - TPAC
  ... add your name to the list of attendees if you plan to go
  ... final final business?

  michaelS: next monday is holidays

  <jo> straw poll?

  <jo> PROPOSAL: no meeting next week

  renato: meeting next week

  <victor> It is day off in Spain. I might make an effort to
  attend.

  <simonstey> 0

  <jo> 0

  <renato> 0

  <mmcrober> 0

  <magyarblip> 0

  +1

  <benws> -1

  <smyles> 0

  <michaelS> +1

  RESOLUTION: The meeting will take place on 16th May

  benws: we will loose a lot of meetings if we follow back
  holidays on each countries

  <jo> [meeting closed]

Summary of Action Items

  [NEW] ACTION: renato add issues related to moving to one spec
  [recorded in
  [18]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes.html#action01]

    [18] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes.html#action01

Summary of Resolutions

   1. [19]Accept last week's minutes
   2. [20]editors for the Info Model ; Renato and Serena
   3. [21]editors for the Vocab Expression: Renato, Michael, Mo,
      Stuart, James
   4. [22]We will use the name ODRL for our devliverables
   5. [23]last resolution is revoked
   6. [24]Ben and Simon will also be editors on the UCR NOTE
   7. [25]Ben and Simon will also be editors on the UCR NOTE
   8. [26]The meeting will take place on 16th May

  [End of minutes]
    __________________________________________________________


   Minutes formatted by David Booth's [27]scribe.perl version
   1.144 ([28]CVS log)
   $Date: 2016/05/09 13:03:43 $
    __________________________________________________________

    [27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
    [28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

  [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34
Check for newer version at [29]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/
scribe/

    [29] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/fist/first/
Succeeded: s|s?s fist/first??||
Found Scribe: serena
Inferring ScribeNick: Serena
Default Present: renato, jo, simonstey, michaelS, Serena, mmcrober, smyl
es, benws, victor, brian
Present: renato jo simonstey michaelS Serena mmcrober smyles benws victo
r brian
Regrets: PhilA Ivan caroline
Agenda: [30]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160509
Found Date: 09 May 2016
Guessing minutes URL: [31]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes.html
People with action items: add issues related renato

    [30] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160509
    [31] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes.html

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.



  [End of [32]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

    [32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2016 09:06:06 UTC