[Minutes] 2016-05-16

The minutes of today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes

Thanks to Jo for scribing.

General thrust of the meeting is that the standard will be called ODRL, 
however, Ben has an action item to suggest at least one alternative.

Minutes in text form pasted below.


   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

16 May 2016

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160516

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Jo, phila, james, smyles, benws, Brian_Ulicny,
           magyarblip

    Regrets
           caroline, Ivan, SabrinaKirrane

    Chair
           Ben

    Scribe
           jo

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Minutes of last meeting
          2. [6]Naming of the standard
          3. [7]Use Cases
          4. [8]AOB
      * [9]Summary of Action Items
      * [10]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <scribe> scribe: jo

    benws: lots of people missing because of hiolidays in (the rest
    of) europe

Minutes of last meeting

    PROPOSAL: Agree minutes of last meeting
    [11]https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes

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

    <renato> +1

    <smyles> +1

    <phila> 0 wasn't there

    <benws> +1

    <magyarblip> +1

    <james> +1

    RESOLUTION: Agree minutes of last meeting
    [12]https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes

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

Naming of the standard

    benws: This is the name that the standard will go by, not the
    namespace
    ... can't call it Open Digital Rights, let's clarify the
    sensitivity

    phila: W3C is not saying the word rights is a problem, it's the
    community that says it is
    ... we can say that ODRL does not stand for anything
    ... I don't feel strongly, the only people who have said it's a
    problem are members of the ODRL community

    smyles: IPTC IPTC decided to call it's effort based on ODRL
    RightsML
    ... tells people what it is about, or what it is for
    ... not immediately clear what ODRL stands for
    ... can we come up with a name that is more secriptive
    ... want to stick with odrl as a namespace

    benws: is it important that the name has meaning

    smyles: yes

    renato: my preference is to continue to use ODRL - it has a
    long history

    <magyarblip> only do right language?

    renato: don't see it as a problem if the meaning of the letters
    is not stated

    magyarblip: historical artefact, you do forget what these
    things mean, don't see the issue, already well-known

    benws: anyone else?
    ... seems eccentric to call something by an acronym that dare
    not speak its name
    ... do want people to talk about it
    ... name should have a resonance
    ... uptake is only a fraction of what it will be and would
    prefer to find a different name
    ... finding it impossible to change the name when discussing to
    POE

    phila: don't have a strong view, however if we stick with ODRL,
    then fact that R stands for Rights creates a problem that we
    may have to change later
    ... do we think that R is a problem in any community
    ... we made several attempts at naming this group L for
    Licensing etc etc etc
    ... no one is particularly happy with POE
    ... don't want to have to back-track
    ... W3C is facing lots of comments with Encrypted Media
    Extensions
    ... we don't want to get engaged with that kind of distraction
    if we can avoid it

    renato: RightsML is a profile of ODRL, the idea was to create
    profiles and they can name it what they want
    ... if we called it foobar then it would still be about rights
    ... the controversy about EME is nothing to do with it being
    called EME, after all
    ... the name won't make any difference to any controversy it
    may attract

    benws: I think the name makes a lot of difference around uptake
    at least
    ... also what is nice about POE is that it is clear that it is
    about "Expression" not "Enforcement" of rights

    <Brian_Ulicny> I'm happy with POE as the name, but still using
    odrl as namespace etc for historical reasons

    benws: and people do jump to the conclusion that ODRL is about
    enforcement

    <smyles> [13]http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html
    "there are two hard things in computer science: cache
    invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors"

      [13] http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html

    benws: straw poll time

    <Brian_Ulicny> No

    <benws> -1

    PROPOSAL: The standard wil be called ODRL

    <renato> +1

    <smyles> +1

    <Brian_Ulicny> Sorry.

    <Brian_Ulicny> -1

    <magyarblip> i really don't care

    <magyarblip> i care that it exists

    <simonstey> +0.5 (in absence of any other alternative)

    <james> 0 - I prefer the term Permission as I think its more
    accurate and matches what exists in the model

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about depth of TR's
    disapproval

    phila: the aim of the process is to reach consensus (general
    agreement with no strong objections)
    ... if anyone feels strongly then you can raise a formal
    objection
    ... if that happens then chairs are asked to resolve then and
    if that doesn't happen then it gets escalated

    smyles: what is difficult about the proposal
    ... what else might it be called, since it's hard to make a
    call otherwise

    jo: +1 to smyles

    <magyarblip> +1

    benws: action on those who are not happy to come up with
    alternatives

    <scribe> ACTION: Ben to initiate a conversation on list to
    resolve what the alternative names might be [recorded in
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes.html#action01]

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

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-10 - Initiate a conversation on list
    to resolve what the alternative names might be [on Benedict
    Whittam Smith - due 2016-05-23].

Use Cases

    benws: how many ppl on this call have provided a use case?

    <smyles> i have provided a use case

    <phila> I have

    benws: those who have provided a use can, can you pls note if a
    change to ODRL is presupposed by your use case

    smyles: think it is possible, but could do with clarification -
    can this be used for exceptional or supplemental licenses

    <james> [15]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases

      [15] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases

    smyles: perhaps the processing model should be clarified or
    expanded

    benws: does your use case touvh template things

    smyles: no, but perhaps I should add that
    ... museum community would be keen

    <scribe> ACTION: myles to add a template use case [recorded in
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes.html#action02]

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - Add a template use case [on
    Stuart Myles - due 2016-05-23].

    phila: my use case is already covered I think - temporal aspect
    from date or between dates

    renato: yes date constraints are covered

    <magyarblip> q

    magyarblip: I have been torturing myself (a little bit) not so
    much that things are expressible, but that they are optimal
    ... also too many options is a bad thing

    benws: we may wish to provide guidance on this
    ... are there some basic application patterns we want to
    recommend

    phila: is this a duplicate, but anyway, most data that is put
    on a portal has a cc license of some kind, they also want to
    represent what cc by means
    ... can we associate a document in plain text with a machine
    readable decomposition of what is in it

    renato: do you mean, you have an asset, there is a human
    readable license there is also a machine readable breakdown
    ... so long as you can actually express the natural language in
    odrl ..

    phila: in a machine readable way, say that the document is
    normative if there is a difference

    <magyarblip> prov?

    benws: there could be a higher level ontological issue, ODRL's
    job is only to express the machine readable bit

    renato: there is a W3C media ontology which might solve the use
    cae

    benws: please raise this as a use case

    <magyarblip> [17]https://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/

      [17] https://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/

    benws: Open data people

    phila: that's ODRS

    smyles: I provided a use case, michael said to list requirement
    that come out of use case, do I have to list everything that I
    think is required, or the ones that are not covered by ODRL 2.1

    phila: usually the case that a use case will throw up a list of
    atomic requirement most of which will be repeated across
    requirements
    ... in the end the requirements end up being an atomic list

    benws: so the answer is an exhaustive list
    ... more on use cases?

AOB

    benws: brian pls introduce yourself

    brian: based in boston, have done OWL based policy reasoning
    about who can talk to whom across XMPP channels etc. just
    catching up on stuff and getting feet wet

    meeting closed

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Ben to initiate a conversation on list to resolve
    what the alternative names might be [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: myles to add a template use case [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes.html#action02]

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes.html#action01
      [19] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes.html#action02

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [20]Agree minutes of last meeting
        https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 16 May 2016 13:30:14 UTC