[Minutes][2016-10-17

The minutes of today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-minutes with a snapshot below. Thanks 
to Brian for scribing.

    [1]W3C

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

   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

17 Oct 2016

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           victor, Ben, Brian, Caroline, Michael, Phil, Simon,
           Serena, smyles, simonstey, James

    Regrets
           Renato, Sabrina

    Chair
           Ben

    Scribe
           Brian

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]AOB
      * [5]Summary of Action Items
      * [6]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <phila> scribe: Brian

    <phila> scribeNick: Brian_Ulicny

    RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes
    [7]https://www.w3.org/2016/10/10-poe-minutes

       [7] https://www.w3.org/2016/10/10-poe-minutes

    Simon has gone through all the requirements based on the TPAC.

    benws: "the list of requirements on the sheet were the ones
    that had been accepted"

    <simonstey> [8]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements

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

    Simon asks the group before the next call to go through the
    wiki requirements and check whether Simon has correctly
    captured the status of the requirements.

    <victor> ok, so we are supposed to read this again and provide
    feedback.

    Simon directs attention especially to the blue colored
    requirements.

    So group is enjoined to please look at the use case doc and
    requirements.

    <simonstey> +q

    Michael mentions that the contributor of the use case should
    make sure that the use cases and requirements line up.

    Michael "especially the ones marked agreed without discussion"

    benws: "how could they be agreed without discussion?"

    michael: "they were assumed to be agreed based on call to
    discuss"

    Phil: "am I supposed to be looking at wiki or editor's draft?"

    <michaelS> q

    Simon: "look at wiki"

    benws: "agreed that wiki is canonical version"

    <benws> "for now ...2

    phil: do we need to assign action items? Or agree that after a
    certain date, everything will be transferred from wiki to
    editor's draft.

    "we need to concentrate the mind"

    simon: "there's only one requirement left that has 'agreed
    without discussion'"

    has to do with notes and formal semantics

    michael: "on lowest part of page, we have a 'needs
    consideration'"

    "three have undefined status -- only proposed"

    "so are they still under consideration"

    Simon: "no, I forgot to change status. Discussed on 23d. Will
    change"

    benws: "let's move on to tech discussion - constraints on
    constraints"

    "three possibilities"

    "let's take use case of embargo"

    "one suggestion: create an emargo"

    "another solution (ivan): create two kinds of has constraint
    property -- one like we already have, another a qualified
    containt"

    "third option: chain constraints together"

    "any other options?"

    victor: "sent an example earlier this am as Sparql query"

    <victor>
    [9]http://cosasbuenas.es/static/ComplexrestrictionswithSPARQL.p
    df

       [9] http://cosasbuenas.es/static/ComplexrestrictionswithSPARQL.pdf

    victor posts suggestion

    victor: "requires sparql endpoint"

    <simonstey> which is actually SHACL

    "using SPIN"

    "example is self-explanatory"

    benws: "isn't this an example of the first use case - creation
    of a complex object"

    victor: "Yes that's right"

    michael: "i could only join meeting by audio in lisbon"

    "can't understand model behind these examples"

    "would be great help for everyone on the call"

    benws: "I will publish some example"

    "existing constraint model allows contraint only on one
    predicate or property"

    "let's say there's an embargo on extract from football match"

    "need to know end of event time and offset interval"

    "our existing constraint model can only handle one parameter"

    benws: "the first model is where object of predicate is a
    complex item -- e.g. an embargo object"

    "second option allows two types of constraint: one standard,
    the second is qualified constraint qualified by external
    object"

    "inject the additional constraints into the external object"

    "third option: multiple constraints chained together"

    simon: "have a lot to say"

    "before we introduce fancy constraints, we need to understand
    what we want ODRL to be/allow"

    "do we want to do constraint checking?"

    "do we want to verify that constraints hold?"

    simon: are we just concerned with expressiveness?

    <simonstey> [10]http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/

      [10] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/

    "SHACL working group output could be used to express
    constraints"

    "if we go with chaining, which looks attractive,...there are
    problems"

    "looping, for example"

    "i really want to discourage going down chaining route"

    phil: "whichever option is chosen, need to build it"

    "someone should try to implement this stuff -- W3C suggests
    that you need to do this stuff"

    benws: "I am writing code around this"

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to say that any one of those three
    objections on their own out this solution

    benws: "can simon provide some concrete examples of dangers of
    chaining?"

    simon: "yes"

    phil: "problems listed in the PDF show why this solution is not
    the right one"

    sm: "plea for non-complex constraints"

    "video editors have these constraints all the time"

    "often an embargo is turned from relative time to concrete
    time: embargo will definitely be over by x o'clock"

    <simonstey> +q

    benws: "embargoes are not the only complex constraint"

    "payments are another example"

    simon: "regarding renato's chaining example, not sure if
    example is complex enough"

    <simonstey> odrl:constraint [ a odrl:Constraint ; odrl:operator
    odrl:eq ; odrl:event <[11]http://epl.com/vocab/afterMatch> ;
    odrl:constraint <[12]http://example.com/30minEmbargo>; ].
    <[13]http://example.com/30minEmbargo> a odrl:Constraint ;
    odrl:operator odrl:eq ; odrl:dateTime "P30M"^^xsd:duration .

      [11] http://epl.com/vocab/afterMatch
      [12] http://example.com/30minEmbargo
      [13] http://example.com/30minEmbargo

    "permission is granted during an event"

    "point is that I've encountered a situation where there is no
    property that can be used"

    "the property is not adequate to address the use case"

    benws: "let's take this discussion to mailing list and
    reconvene next week"

    "will provide concrete examples"

    <simonstey> +q

    <simonstey> [14]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/45

      [14] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/45

    simon: "raised an issue on github wrt relations"

    "does it make sense to have extended relations for
    permissions?"

    <simonstey>
    [15]https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#extended-relations

      [15] https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#extended-relations

    "spec says that if you and permissions then you have to do all
    of them. this is wrong"

    "you have to do all ANDed duties, not permission"

    "permissions"

    "what does it mean to tie permissions with an OR?"

    simon: "either you have to satisfy this constraint or that
    constraint"

    "specification is wrong. Uses 'may not', which is not defined."

    serena: "I agree with simon. Connectors for duties and
    constraints, not relations"

    <phila> PROPOSED: That the extended relations (AND, OR, XOR)
    will only apply to Duties and Constraints, not Permissions and
    Prohibitions

    <simonstey> +1

    <benws> +1

    <Serena> +1

    not sure

    <James> +1

    <phila> victor: +1

    RESOLUTION: That the extended relations (AND, OR, XOR) will
    only apply to Duties and Constraints, not Permissions and
    Prohibitions

    <smyles> +1

    <michaelS> +1

    benws: "will quickly run through open actions"

    <benws> [16]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open

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

    <phila> action-25?

    <trackbot> action-25 -- Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel to Provide an
    example of how good relations vocab support 'unit-of-count' --
    due 2016-09-29 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [17]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/25

      [17] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/25

    "victor, you were going to provide an example of unit-of-count"

    <phila> action-30?

    <trackbot> action-30 -- Stuart Myles to Can we only have a
    json-ld serialisation? will it impact righstml? -- due
    2016-09-30 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [18]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/30

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

    "simon, yours will always be open"

    "issues raised"

    phila: "do we need to follow issues in github as well?"

    "we just need to make sure that we track ALL the issues"

    simon: "is there integration with IRC and the github tracker?"

    phila: "No"

    <phila> [19]GitHub Tracker

      [19] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues

    15 issues on github tracker currently

    phila: "Most raised by renator"

    *renato

    <simonstey> issue-1

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

    <trackbot> [20]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/1

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

    simon: "easier to look up issues in IRC via trackbot"

    <victor> I can solve mine inmediatly Action 25. the example
    that is requested can be seen in slide 18 of
    [21]http://tutorials.oeg-upm.net/rightslinkeddata/session4b.pdf

      [21] http://tutorials.oeg-upm.net/rightslinkeddata/session4b.pdf

AOB

    benws: "can bring this up next week."

    victor: "next f2f: when, where, who (ben is necessary)"

    <phila> phila: I think Renato might well be there

    benws: "suggest a date, we'll take it from there"

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [22]Accept last week's minutes
        https://www.w3.org/2016/10/10-poe-minutes
     2. [23]That the extended relations (AND, OR, XOR) will only
        apply to Duties and Constraints, not Permissions and
        Prohibitions

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 17 October 2016 13:02:33 UTC