RE: [Minutes] 2016-10-24 Incl. *Time change next week*

Perhaps I am confused by my jet lag but weren't previous meetings on the hour at noon GMT? For example, here is the meeting invite for Monday 05 September 2016 - Noon GMT

https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160905


A change to 12.30 UTC / 8.30 Eastern for next Monday works for me. But a change to 11.30 UTC / 7.30am will be considerably harder for me to make the telecons.

Again, please forgive me if I've misunderstood / become confused.

Regards,

Stuart


-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org] 
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 9:15 AM
To: POE WG
Subject: [Minutes] 2016-10-24 Incl. *Time change next week*

Dear all,

Predictably enough, the minutes of today's meeting are at https://www.w3.org/2016/10/24-poe-minutes with a text snapshot below. 
Thanks to Simon for scribing.

As Europe moves off daylight saving this weekend, and the USA follows suit the following week, we talked about the call timing. End result, as of next week, 31/10, the call will begin at *12:30 UTC*.

In your time zone that's
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Regular+POE+WG+Call&iso=20161031T1230&p1=1440&ah=1


For next week that means
East coast: *08:30*
UK: 12:30
CET: 13:30
Brisbane: 22:30


The following week, USA will have also ended DST and so the call will be at 07:30 EDT.

Hope that's OK with everyone.



   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

24 Oct 2016

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/24-poe-irc


Attendees

    Present
           renato, scribe, ivan, Serena, Brian_Ulicny, phila, Simon

    Regrets
           Stuart, Michael, Ben, Caroline, Victor

    Chair
           renato

    Scribe
           simonstey

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]admin
          2. [5]UC from BSIG
          3. [6]POE.UC.28: Enhance discovery of library collection
             materials
          4. [7]POE.UC.29
          5. [8]POE.UC.30
          6. [9]POE.UC.31
          7. [10]change of meeting time
      * [11]Summary of Action Items
      * [12]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <scribe> scribe: simonstey

admin

    renato: approval of last week's minutes

    [13]https://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-minutes.html


      [13] https://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-minutes.html


    <Brian_Ulicny> +1

    <Serena> +1

    scribe: no objections; minutes accepted

UC from BSIG

    <renato>
    [14]https://docs.google.com/document/d/15nbqGY20IIGbTQOzKxzw59T

    LzwfPpRZu-1KKA97phKg/edit

      [14]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15nbqGY20IIGbTQOzKxzw59TLzwfPpRZu-1KKA97phKg/edit


    renato: we got some UC from the book industry study group

    <phila> Happy, sure

    renato: we'll now go through them one by one

    <Serena> sure

POE.UC.28: Enhance discovery of library collection materials

    UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: some req. read more like principles rather
    than actual requirements
    ... not sure what library-to-library licensing actually entails

    +q

    <phila> simonstey: Second what Phil said, this library to
    library case isn't special from our POV. You can define an
    agreement, one library is the assignee, one is the assigner
    etc.

    phila: one response is "this is already covered" and I think so
    too

    22.1 -> already covered

    +q

    <Brian_Ulicny> +q

    <phila> simonstey: This could be a super valuable asset that
    you physically display but only for the case of someone to look
    at t, not to lend it out etc.

    Brian_Ulicny: not sure what "display for discovery" actually
    means

    renato: maybe we should ask them for some clarification

    22.2 -> ask BISG for clarification

    <phila> simonstey: This is related too the grouping of assets?

    <phila> ... The chapters, graphs etc.

    renato: later on we have req. referring to breaking down the
    asset into individual parts

    22.3 -> already satisfied (i.e. defning perm/.. for individual
    subcomponents and group them together in a policy)

    22.4 -> already satisfied

POE.UC.29

    phila: that's potentially a bigger problem than just applying
    perm/prohibitions
    ... this I believe is a hot topic in digital publishing
    ... if you have an ID for your document, how are you
    identifying individual parts?

    ivan: I don't think this WG should try to invent something
    ... we should take whatever's already out there
    ... I think the issue here is whether this can be used for ODRL
    ... the gettyimage is a difficult example in that context
    ... if I have a resource, can I assign perm/proh to that
    resource
    ... and subsequently to parts of that resource too?

    renato: well.. partially
    ... we want to have something that allows us to define "parts"
    of an asset

    ivan: I have URI1 describing certain rights, URI2 describing
    some other rights
    ... can I say -> for everything that's not covered by URI1,
    look for it at URI2

    renato: no, I don't think so

    phila: it is not easy to define such "default behavior/set of
    metadata", we did that in POWDER
    ... I think we are getting well beyond what this WG should do
    ... I'm not proposing POWDER as a solution, just wanted to
    mention it

    <Brian_Ulicny> +q

    +q

    ivan: from an ODRL point of view, structure isn't that
    important

    Brian_Ulicny: I think there are 2 issues here
    ... 1) whether rights of parts are communicated back to the
    whole

    <phila> simonstey: Regarding this issue of parts of a whole,
    applying things to the whole or parts... this is put here in
    the domain of libraries, but we also have it coming from TR.
    They boil down to this use case.

    ivan: I want to be a bit cautious about saying "just put a URI
    on it"
    ... I would not dismiss the fact that someones uses a blank
    node for describing a resource

    <phila> [15]POWDER eg

      [15] https://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#eg2-6


    phila: I keep talking about powder
    ... it's an example of a policy
    ... line 7 -> beginning of an audit list (dr = description
    resource)
    ... 1) IRI set 2) set of descriptors

    [phila explains example POWDER policy]

    <ivan>
    [16]http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-res

    pec.html

      [16]
http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-respec.html


    ivan: that's the document I was referring to
    ... section 3 the selectors

    <ivan>
    [17]http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-res

    pec.html#TextQuoteSelector_def

      [17]
http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-respec.html#TextQuoteSelector_def


    ivan: an example expressed in JSON defining sections of a
    document
    ... this (or a combination for that matter) is able to define
    specific parts of a document
    ... what the rec. behind that doesn't have is URIs for it

    <ivan>
    [18]http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-res

    pec.html#json-examples-converted-to-fragment-identifiers

      [18]
http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-respec.html#json-examples-converted-to-fragment-identifiers


    ivan: here you do get URIs (ugly ones though)
    ... I don't know whether it's possible for ODRL to define
    perms/prohi. for something that's defined like that

    renato: you are talking about example 6 of the first link
    you've posted?
    ... I recall that we've a req. that requires to be able to
    define constraints on assets too

    <ivan>
    [19]http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-res

    pec.html#SelectorRefinement_def

      [19]
http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-respec.html#SelectorRefinement_def


    ivan: yes, it could be seen as constraint on a URI

    [renato & ivan talking about possible realization in ODRL]

    renato: we'll ask them to give us some clarification

    23.6/7 -> implementation specific

    23.1-5 -> ask BISG for clarification

POE.UC.30

    ivan: 24.3 refers to the fact that certain publishers may
    provide free "samples" of their books
    ... but this would then actually result in two different assets

    +q

    <phila> simonstey: I don't think we can enumerate all the
    possible purposes

    renato: long long time ago we had something like "subscription"

    <Serena> I agree with Simon

    <phila> simonstey: I think the fact that we can add time to
    permissions etc. means ODRL covers these use cases

POE.UC.31

    25.1 -> supported using grantUse/nextPolicy

    24.1-24.5 -> covered, need some investigation though

change of meeting time

    <phila> phila: Will circulate new time of 12:30 UTC which, in
    UTC terms, is half an hour later than the current meeting time,
    but will be half an hour earlier on northern hemisphere
    calendars after DST ends

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 24 October 2016 14:03:57 UTC