[Minutes] 2016-10-10

As ever the minutes of today's meeting are at 
www.w3.org/2016/10/10-poe-minutes with a text snapshot below. Thanks to 
Michael for scribing.


   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

10 Oct 2016

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161010

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/10-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           renato, ivan, James, victor, michaelS, CarolineB,
           sabrina, phila

    Regrets
    Chair
           renato

    Scribe
           michaelS

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]last meeting minutes
          2. [6]2. Use Cases and Requirements
          3. [7]3: Technical Discussion
          4. [8]3.1 Constraints on Constraints
          5. [9]3.2 Validity of Policy
          6. [10]4 Deliverables List
          7. [11]5 WG Timeline
          8. [12]6 Action items + issues
      * [13]Summary of Action Items
      * [14]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

last meeting minutes

    [15]https://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes.html

      [15] https://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes.html

    RESOLUTION: the minutes of the last call are accepted

2. Use Cases and Requirements

    <phila> michaelS: No, I haven't

    Simon was active on adding references

3: Technical Discussion

3.1 Constraints on Constraints

    renato: key issue is that we currently have only a single
    constraint, how to extend this?
    ... One of the use cases were in Lisbon: a relative constraint
    like "may be published 30 minutes after the game"

    <benws2> +1

    phila: doesn't seem to me so over-complicated

    <Brian_Ulicny> +1

    phila: supports to include it.

    ivan: is this about only a time constraint - or a more generic
    requirement
    ... But this could be solve by starting with the time
    constraint first and then to make it more generic

    ben: thinks this is a general issue, not only about time
    ... there are use cases related to payments which are very
    similiar
    ... we need a generic solution

    renato: we need also to express relations between constraints -
    something "constraint A depends on constraint B"

    phila: are all relative time use cases about a related event
    ... in this case we only need a new "related event"

    <phila> ac me

    ben: another relative relationship is : payment per account,
    payment per person

    ivan: asked renato to put in IRC his draft of a discussed new
    solution

    renato: has no clear outline, only first ideas
    ... we need some thoughts how to do that in the ontology first,
    then think about encoding
    ... issue: we have to be aware that one thing may occur before
    the other ... maybe next week.

    ivan: should we reorder the sequence of solving things

    renato: ok, we could look at relatives time constraints first

    <James> sounds a good approach to try

    <Sabrina> Seems like a reasonable suggestion to me!

    phila: use case "30 minutes after game ended" - what is the
    right expression to express this logic

    ben: maybe the best way to test this examples

    renato: constraints on constraints or dependancies across
    constraints?
    ... let's talk about extended relations
    ... to express alternative options, like 'pay' or 'subscribe to
    a service'
    ... what is the model for hat?
    ... does W3C has similar solutions for tthat?

    ivan: cannot recall such a solution. What renato describes is
    very close to the previous use case
    ... - first you have the triples of the statement and then you
    want to make a statement about one or more of these triples.
    ... this is the typical case for using a named graph

    Brian_Ulicny and ivan discussed options for solving that issue

    ivan: thinks what is discussed must be expressed properly in
    RDF

    ben: is this the case for latests suggestions?

    <Sabrina> Agreed.... This is what we need to look into....

    ivan: not sure, needs to be checked in detail.

    <Sabrina> I"m happy to look into this

    <Sabrina> q

    phila: feels this goes in a very complex direction
    ... we might go outside OWL - will users want to do that

    Discussion about the need for a reasoner.

    renato: we need to make a model and include that into the
    existing one but next we need to fit this into the OWL of the
    ontology

    ivan: we might define a reifiction-like object which might have
    additional information attached to it
    ... we might apply a specific URI to a constraint
    ... in a next step we could created a list of URIs/constraints
    and apply a next level of relationships/dependancies to them
    ... we should try that - may there are hidden problems

    renato: the additional constraints should be added as
    additional data - the basic date should always be the same
    ... it would be great if some come up with example solutions
    this week and we could look at them at the next call

    <James> I don't mind

    renato: who volunteers for that`?

    <James> sure

    <benws2> Me too

    <James> Be good to have more than pair of eyes

    <James> *one pair

    ivan: voluteers to look at the examples, but will be in China
    next week

    <Sabrina> I will look into OWL

    <Sabrina> I am also not here next week as I will be at ISWC in
    Japan

    renato: will communicate next steps with the volunteers

    <victor> (please count me in)

    <Brian_Ulicny>
    [16]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s_interval_algebra

      [16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen's_interval_algebra

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Allen's algebra

    Brian_Ulicny: we should investigate the different types of
    temporal relations

    phila: Special Data WG is behind registering such temporal
    relations

3.2 Validity of Policy

    renato: how to express that a policy is only valid in a stricly
    defined period - by what means to express that?

    <phila> [17]LOV search for valid from

      [17] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/terms?q=valid from (0..1)

    ben: aren't there already existing time constraint properties?

    phila: searched for "valid from" and found many

    ivan: looks a provenance ontology, has some very specific time
    related properties - this group did not try to find a generic
    solution

    <James> I think we want "expires"

    renato: common wording is "valid from" and valid to"
    ... clarified the suggestion of "expires": is the same as
    "valid to"

    victor: how to proceed, by exchanging emails?

    renato: yea

4 Deliverables List

    renato: the group has discussed already what should be put on
    this list. There is a list of documents in the Charter

    <renato> [18]https://www.w3.org/2016/09/poe6

      [18] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/poe6

    renato: went over the items shown in
    [19]https://www.w3.org/2016/09/poe6

      [19] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/poe6

    phila: will support finding a solution for item 5, mapping

    <renato> [20]https://www.w3.org/2016/09/poe8

      [20] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/poe8

5 WG Timeline

    renato: went over the draft at
    [21]https://www.w3.org/2016/09/poe6

      [21] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/poe6

6 Action items + issues

    victor: volunteered to organize the f2f meeting in March -
    details at the next call

    ivan: will send out an email about what he discussed above

    renato: thanked all participants and closed the call

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [22]the minutes of the last call are accepted

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 10 October 2016 14:37:20 UTC