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

Hi Stuart,

I have carefully not used the term GMT as people often equate that with 
London time.

But bottom line, yes, we're suggesting a regular slot of 07:30 Eastern 
from November - as that's better for you and Brian than the alternative 
suggestion which was to leave it at 12:00 UTC which would make it 07:00 
for you. Brian said 07:30 was preferable to 07:00 (who would argue!). 
Remember that for Renato... its late :-)

I note your dislike of 07:30 EDT. Let's see what others say (there 
weren't many on today' call).

Phil.

On 24/10/2016 15:02, Myles, Stuart wrote:
> 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]
>       __________________________________________________________
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Monday, 24 October 2016 14:47:36 UTC