- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:23:24 +0000
- To: POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
Predictably enough, the minutes of this week's call are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/10/31-poe-minutes with a text snapshot below.
Thanks to Victor for scribing.
Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
31 Oct 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161031
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/31-poe-irc
Attendees
Present
renato, Sabrina, ivan, James, michaelS, victor,
Brian_Ulicny, smyles, phila
Regrets
Serena, Ben, Caroline
Chair
renato
Scribe
victor
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Approve last meeting's minutes
2. [6]BISG use cases
3. [7]POE.UC.33: Disambiguate access permission from
copyright permission (University Press)
4. [8]POE.UC.34: Library collection management and access
5. [9]POE.UC.35: Rights licensing for custom textbook
publishing (higher education publishers)
6. [10]POE U.C. 36: Users need to know the permissions
and obligations associated with using a given
publication.
7. [11]Policy type to support PLUS data model
8. [12]Management of actions / issues on different
locations
9. [13]Virtual F2F meeting
* [14]Summary of Action Items
* [15]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> agenda:
[16]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161031
[16] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161031
<renato> [17]https://www.w3.org/2016/10/24-poe-minutes.html
[17] https://www.w3.org/2016/10/24-poe-minutes.html
Approve last meeting's minutes
RESOLUTION: meeting notes of the last week's call have been
approved
<renato>
[18]https://docs.google.com/document/d/15nbqGY20IIGbTQOzKxzw59T
LzwfPpRZu-1KKA97phKg/edit
[18]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15nbqGY20IIGbTQOzKxzw59TLzwfPpRZu-1KKA97phKg/edit
BISG use cases
POE.UC.32: Improve efficiency of foreign rights transactions
(University Press)
renato: Requirement 3.1 is about being language-agnostic for
international purposes
... URI's are neutral hence every language can be potentially
supported
... this applies to 3.2 and 3.3 too
ivan: terms can also be numbers, and these be mapped to actual
languages. This way the system is more neutral, as ODRL is
English-oriented.
renato: W3C Internationalization Requeriments are the reference
ivan: what we do should be ok for these requirements
RESOLUTION: We considered UC32 as covered
POE.UC.33: Disambiguate access permission from copyright permission
(University Press)
renato: four requirements are stated
victor: is "given platform covered"?
renato: we can specify the specific device
michaelS: is platform=device?
renato: it is also about access control
ivan: we can represent the right to access
<James> Authentication and Authorisation is out of scope I
think.
renato: Marc says it deals with usage permission
michaelS: this is a general problem. Once accessed... are they
allowed to read only? copy-paste?
<James> Authorisation may make use of a ODRL an agreement
depending on internal business rules
ivan: perhaps by allowing the plug-in of external vocabularies
would suffice
renato: any other comment?
Brian_Ulicny: the licensing environment must be considered
renato: perhaps we need more clarification
RESOLUTION: We ask for more clarification to University Press
topic. POE.UC.34: Library collection management and access
POE.UC.34: Library collection management and access
renato: (reads aloud the four requirements)
... we are already covering 34.1. There are other standards
like ONIX for Books, JATS for journal articles, XMP or PLUS for
images.
michaelS: this is much like composite photos
<michaelS> [19]https://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/
[19] https://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/
michaelS: if we have a composited asset, we can different
policies for each of the regions of the asset
... should these independent policies be somehow grouped?
renato: i understand that different parts of the assets are
identified with URIs following the media fragments
recommendations...
requirement 3 is about providing standard info on the copyright
holders
(silence)
renato: requirement 4 is about different rightsholders in
different geographical areas
michaelS: then we can simply have different policies, each
applying to a region
<James> I agree with MichaelS
phila: there is a difference between geography and jurisdiction
michaelS: we use country codes as equivalent to jurisdiction
victor: (I had a small objection, but worthless to be
discussed: we specify the country code tied to a restriction,
not to an statement that is generally attributed to the party)
POE.UC.35: Rights licensing for custom textbook publishing (higher
education publishers)
RESOLUTION UC.34 is already covered.
michaelS: 35.1 is already covered
Req. 35.2 is about "Permissions data may also be associated
with a group of products"
ivan: we may want to remember POWDER...
renato: we can have more than 1 URI as the target. Can't we?
ivan: why not? a list of identifiers
James: this is like a problem we discussed: we may not want one
policy pointing to 1000 assets, but 1000 assets pointing to one
single policy.
smyles: a URI identifying a single thing is a very rare case.
E.g. one video may have one URI. But it will have multiple
renditions. E.g. a text item might be updated and have
differently authored versions etc.
phila: There are several solutions. URI templates are very well
stablished (braces), google uses wildcards
... are these UC important enough for this group to tackle
them?
ivan: CSV on the Web used URI templates.
<ivan> [20]https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6570
[20] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6570
ivan: With that, we have something to start with.
phila: The "exceptions" are not perfectly handled (in POWDER
they were better modeled) but it is just a detail
<phila> phila: I would say "A POWDER- like approach" rather
than recommend it directly
renato: this should be no problem -- 35.3 Permissions and
obligations must be able to be expressed for content locally
authored, for example by a teacher, that is not licensed from a
third party.
... We are not in control of "35.4 policies must be able to be
persistent"
ivan: +1
renato: on 35.6, "The permissions and obligations associated
with the coursepack may not align with the permissions and
obligations associated with each of its components." we may
consider there is a new resource.
<James> its UGC I think
renato: there may not be a perfect alignment, as conflicts may
arise.
ivan: what can we do about it? we do not want to have checking
mechanisms.
renato: at most, within the Semantics note.
POE U.C. 36: Users need to know the permissions and obligations
associated with using a given publication.
renato: this may be part of the implementation details
... 36.2 is pretty much the same
phila: From an American lawyer's point of view, the fact that
you publish a text does not imply that the user has read it
renato: so we take it as out of scope
... we are waiting from clarifications from XXX
ivan: There may be something more serious than URI pattern
renato: we need some narrative text in the spec.
... any other comment regarding BISG?
<renato>
[21]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#POE.R.V.16_As
sertion_Policy_Type
[21]
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#POE.R.V.16_Assertion_Policy_Type
Policy type to support PLUS data model
<James> It seems useful to me
RESOLUTION: we accept POE.R.V.16_Assertion_Policy_Type
renato: shall we come back to complex constraints? AOB? or
shall we talk about virtual F2F?
Management of actions / issues on different locations
renato suggest using exclusively the W3C issue tracker (and NOT
the github issues).
renato: github issues may be tied to the actual edition of the
documents
... while W3C tracker can be used for actions imposed to actual
people.
RESOLUTION: W3C actions to be used as "TODO" list for
participants.
Virtual F2F meeting
renato: it has been announced as a "very long conference 4-6
hours"
phila: it is limited by timezones.
... there is no easy way.
<Sabrina> Depending on the start time - I might not be able to
attend the whole Virtual F2F due to a parent teacher meeting
phila: 12.30 UTC is perhaps the best for most of us --but 22.30
for Renato(!). Alternatively, we may start much later so that
Renato wakes up early and joins.
renato: I prefer in my night, possibly abanding the call
earlier than the rest.
phila: s/abanding/abandoning
renato: I will propose a window of time; agenda is related to
having WDs ready by mid December.
... AOB?
phila: What about real F2F?
renato: will be included in the next agenda
<scribe> ACTION: renato to write VirtualF2F agenda - due next
week [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2016/10/31-poe-minutes.html#action01]
[22] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/31-poe-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - Write virtualf2f agenda [on
Renato Iannella - due 2016-11-07].
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: renato to write VirtualF2F agenda - due next week
[recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2016/10/31-poe-minutes.html#action01]
[23] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/31-poe-minutes.html#action01
Summary of Resolutions
1. [24]meeting notes of the last week's call have been
approved
2. [25]We considered UC32 as covered
3. [26]We ask for more clarification to University Press
4. [27]we accept POE.R.V.16_Assertion_Policy_Type
5. [28]W3C actions to be used as "TODO" list for participants.
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 31 October 2016 16:23:38 UTC