- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:07:29 +0100
- To: POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting (TPAC day 2) are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes and below as text
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
23 Sep 2016
Attendees
Present
benw, bob, ivan, paulj, renato, sabrina, simonstey,
victor_, victor, phila, michaelS
Regrets
Chair
Ben
Scribe
paulj, victor, Serena
Contents
* [2]Topics
1. [3]POE.R.V.10 Add terms to the Roles of a Party
Vocabulary
2. [4]POE.R.V.11 New Party Category Vocabulary
3. [5]POE.R.V.12 New Asset Category Vocabulary
4. [6]POE.R.V.13 Temporal Constraint
5. [7]POE.R.V.14 Using time spans in Temporal Constraints
6. [8]POE.R.V.15 Reference to Source License
7. [9]POE.R.E.01 Referring to external resources for
defining payment fees
8. [10]POE.R.E.02 Prove that a list of existing licenses
can be expressed/encoded
9. [11]Define rules for matching permissions/prohibitions
against specific use cases
10. [12]Define a language for controlling processing
policies
11. [13]Define processing rules for versioned policies
12. [14]Support to auto-generate a policy from a template
plus provided parameter values
13. [15]Guidance on Rights Assignments through Aggregation
and Derivation
14. [16]Guidance on Specifying Subsets of Assets
15. [17]Guidance on Conflicting Permissions
16. [18]Make policies accessible by URL
17. [19]POE.R.DM.06 Support Relative Time Constraint
18. [20]Digital Publishing IG
19. [21]POE.UC.22: Enhance discovery of library collection
materials
20. [22]POE.UC.24: Rights licensing data for e-book
subscription services
21. [23]POE.UC.25: Improve internal rights management
systems (large book publishers)
22. [24]POE.UC.26: Improve efficiency of foreign rights
transactions (University Press)
23. [25]POE.UC.27: Disambiguate access permission from
copyright permission (University Press)
24. [26]POE.UC.28: Library collection management and
access
25. [27]POE.UC.29: Rights licensing for custom textbook
publishing (higher education publishers)
26. [28]Formal Semantics Note
27. [29]general data protection regulation - Sabrina
28. [30]Horizontal Reviews
* [31]Summary of Action Items
* [32]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<renato> scribe: paulj
POE.R.V.10 Add terms to the Roles of a Party Vocabulary
renato: Last ten vocab items to process now
looking at POE-RV10
victor_: need to specify both ends of compensation payment
<simonstey> +q
<ivan> trackbot, start telcon
RESOLUTION: POE.R.V.10 accepted
<renato> chair: Ben
POE.R.V.11 New Party Category Vocabulary
victor_: As discussed yesterday, need to associate constraints
with a party.
... this is in hand so the requirement is covered
RESOLUTION: POE.R.V.11 satisfied
POE.R.V.12 New Asset Category Vocabulary
RESOLUTION: POE.R.V.12 Satisfied
POE.R.V.13 Temporal Constraint
<simonstey> scribe: paulj
POE.R.V.14 Using time spans in Temporal Constraints
POE.R.V.15 Reference to Source License
victor_: There are terms such as Dublin Core source
... Could be used here
renato: Many means of implementation not specified. Could be
included.
... ...as examples.
RESOLUTION: inlcude Dublin Core Source as example
<simonstey> +q
simonstey: Is this an annotation or something else?
benws: An annotation
POE.R.E.01 Referring to external resources for defining payment fees
<simonstey> [33]http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-status ?
[33] http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-status
victor_: Include not the fee but a reference to a fee
... as a URI for example
benws: Is this core standard or an implementation issue?
<simonstey> -q
victor_: Semantics differ slightly
renato: party has attribute "scope"
... can we can specify that something needs to be dereferenced
before use
... so datatype isnt the amount but a reference to something
external
benws: Risk of creating two ways of doing the same thing
victor_: can just change text to admit references as well
... MPEG-21 REL has this capability
<simonstey> +q
simonstey: should avoid having multiple ways of expressing the
same thing
<victor_> +q
ben: accept scope and new operator to indicate reference
victor_: Idea: as we now have template we could include there
whether things are resources of references?
renato: Not needed
RESOLUTION: accept that scope should have a new operator to
indicate reference
POE.R.E.02 Prove that a list of existing licenses can be
expressed/encoded
RESOLUTION: To be included as part of a Note
Define rules for matching permissions/prohibitions against specific
use cases
benws: Including minimum viable policy and ensure consistency
sabrina: To be discussed as part of semantic checking
<simonstey> which is usually the empty policy?
<victor_> :)
sabrina: Project forthcoming to crawl over multiple licences
and return the least compatible constraint meeting all
RESOLUTION: discuss later
Define a language for controlling processing policies
benws: Out of scope?
Define processing rules for versioned policies
benws: there are means of dealign with versioning
sabrina: for interop, partners will need to agree version to be
used
<victor_> paulj: if things are different they cannot share the
same identifier
ivan: there are good techniques to handle this and it doesnt
need to be normative in this dpcument
benws: Useful to have a URI pointing to a reference to a policy
which is the latest version
RESOLUTION: included best practice in a non nomative note
inlcude
<victor_> +1
<victor_> -q
<victor_> q
Support to auto-generate a policy from a template plus provided
parameter values
RESOLUTION: not needed now
Guidance on Rights Assignments through Aggregation and Derivation
???
RESOLUTION: satisfied
Guidance on Specifying Subsets of Assets
RESOLUTION: satisfied
Guidance on Conflicting Permissions
benws: Does this actually make sense?
sabrina: exceptions and overrides subject to rules of
expression precedence
ivan: Can become very complicated...
benws: This is a request for guidance not normative treatment
of conflict
renato: There is already guidance on conflict
RESOLUTION: No action
Make policies accessible by URL
RESOLUTION: include best practice in a non nomative note
<renato>
[34]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#POE.R.DM.06_S
upport_relative_time_constraints
[34]
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#POE.R.DM.06_Support_relative_time_constraints
<simonstey> [35]https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/
[35] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/
<simonstey> +q
POE.R.DM.06 Support Relative Time Constraint
si
simonstey: Can restrict timing by using time ontology
benws: Need both event and time offset.OWL time will not
suffice here.
... time itself isnt the problem
ivan: Can we place a constraint on the whole ODRL graph?
<simonstey> [36]https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#scheduling
[36] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#scheduling
renato: need to be able to make constraints dependent on each
other
<simonstey> :meeting a :Interval ; :hasBeginning :meetingStart
; :hasDurationDescription :meetingDuration .
<simonstey> :meetingStart a :Instant ; :inXSDDateTime
"2006-11-05T14:00:00-8:00"^^xsd:dateTime .
<simonstey> :meetingDuration a :DurationDescription ; :minutes
45 .
ren
renato: can make scope of a constraint refer to an other
constraint
ivan: that is reification and something we are seeking to avoid
... this is a known recurring RDF problem
<simonstey>
[37]https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#time:TimePosition
[37] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#time:TimePosition
simonstey: Note complexity that will result from addressing
this
ivan: Note that Provenance WG hit same problem.
... uses relationship including qualified version
<renato>
[38]https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/#qualifiedAt
tribution
[38]
https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/#qualifiedAttribution
ivan: Note complexity and that this issue isnt in the primer!
<renato> 3 options -
<renato> 1 - prov option
<renato> 2 - constraint on constrain
<renato> 3 - extend model (eg "embargo")
BACK IN 30 MINS!!
Digital Publishing IG
<renato> Guests: Tzviya Siegman ,Wiley
<renato> Guests: Bill Kasdorf
<simonstey> could you share the link also on irc?
<Sabrina> Renato: Digital Publishing IG - Use Cases (Tzviya
Siegman)
<renato> link coming...
<simonstey> thx
<Sabrina> Bill: Book publishing industry worked on rights vocab
and payments scheme however it never went anywhere
<Sabrina> what they were trying to express was complex and the
big trade partners kept adding complexity
<tzviya> GoogleDoc with use cases
[39]https://docs.google.com/a/bisg.org/document/d/15nbqGY20IIGb
TQOzKxzw59TLzwfPpRZu-1KKA97phKg/edit?usp=sharing
[39]
https://docs.google.com/a/bisg.org/document/d/15nbqGY20IIGbTQOzKxzw59TLzwfPpRZu-1KKA97phKg/edit?usp=sharing
<renato> Simon - does that link work?
<Sabrina> ...They are interested in the rights associated with
granular items (e.g. image in an article, postcast, excerpt
from a book all in the one book)
<simonstey> You need permission -> I requested access
<tzviya> editable link
[40]https://docs.google.com/a/bisg.org/document/d/15nbqGY20IIGb
TQOzKxzw59TLzwfPpRZu-1KKA97phKg/edit?usp=sharing
[40]
https://docs.google.com/a/bisg.org/document/d/15nbqGY20IIGbTQOzKxzw59TLzwfPpRZu-1KKA97phKg/edit?usp=sharing
<Sabrina> ... all coming from different sectors that all
express their metadata differently
<renato> Simon - I just emailed you the document as well
<Sabrina> textbook publisher understands all of the metadata
and all of the vocabs
<simonstey> got it, thx
<Sabrina> ...ODRL could be the common denominator
<Sabrina> ..AP create a 1/4 of a million assets a day therefore
you need machine readabiility
<victor> (can anybody type the standards he just mentioned?)
<renato> ideaAlliance PRISM
<tzviya> JATS Journal Article Tag Suite
<tzviya> JATS has a metadata header
<tzviya> XMP metadata with images
[41]https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/
[41] https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/
<Sabrina> ... plus image data, XMP also used
<Sabrina> ... the need for the rights expression to travel with
the asset
<Sabrina> ... these various sectors need to understand that
they need a standard model and vocab for specifying obligations
and permissions
<Sabrina> benws2: they can develop a profile
<Sabrina> BISG are not usually technical they are contracts and
rights people
<Sabrina> tzviya: we should look at these use cases
<Sabrina> benws2: author royalties are very important to TR
<Sabrina> bill: who owns the rights are relevant and does
result in the determination of who gets payment
<Sabrina> tzviya: We should take a look at the use cases
POE.UC.22: Enhance discovery of library collection materials
<renato> note: UC numbers will be updated ;-)
<Sabrina> an important community that are often ignored are the
library community
<Sabrina> They live and die by semantics
<Sabrina> Bill: This use case is about consistent metadata
describing copyright
<Sabrina> ... Rights data associated with a digital resource
work should be able to convey the whether or notthat is
included in a library collection should always include
permissions and obligations for library-to-library sublicensing
inter-library loan are granted.
<Sabrina> ... interlibrary loan which relates to the digital
resource as opposed to the physical book (where they own the
book)
<Sabrina> ... in the case of digital assets they license the
book
<Sabrina> benws2: Very similar to TR lots of assets and no idea
how to license them
<Sabrina> ... ODRL has a very limited way to express copyright
it would be good to go through the resquirements to see how
well copyright is adressed in ODRL
<Sabrina> ... the idea to be able to reference items within
items. As a standard we will not tell you how to identify your
assets
<Sabrina> bill: the publishing industry would really like
inheritance
<Sabrina> ... if you pull out an asset you need to pull out all
the rights and sent them with the asset
<Sabrina> benws2: are you talking about aggregation?
<Sabrina> tzviya: Lets look at the later requirements e.g. who
owns the copyright for chapter 2 along with all its subitems
<Sabrina> Bill: another example is embargo - an image has no
idea of time however it cannot be displayed until a particular
date
<Sabrina> ... another example is to create a video that they
want to license a year later someone else wants to reuse that
video but there is no way to know that they can't use it
<Sabrina> tzviya: POE.UC.24: Rights licensing data for e-book
subscription services
POE.UC.24: Rights licensing data for e-book subscription services
<Sabrina> A number of opportunities exist for book publishers
to sell works through subscription services, such as Scribd,
Amazon Kindle Unlimited, and Playster, but they are unable to
take advantage of these services because a consistent method
for collecting and communicating subscription rights data has
not been adopted within the industry
POE.UC.25: Improve internal rights management systems (large book
publishers)
<Sabrina> Same use case just a different application
<Sabrina> Bill: I don't need to use ODRL internally but I will
use it for exchange
<Sabrina> benws2: TR use it for text editing fields... It is a
pull down of vocab.
POE.UC.26: Improve efficiency of foreign rights transactions
(University Press)
<Sabrina> China wants to do Spanish for Dummies (language
restrictions, internationalisation) same use case again just a
different application
<Sabrina> ... the expressions need to be language agnostic
<Sabrina> tzviya: for publishing licensing in multiple areas is
a very big area
<Sabrina> Bill: model and vocab needs to be language agnostic
<Sabrina> benws2: We will provide an extension model
<Sabrina> Bill: It would be good to have language codes such as
THEMA or ONIX
<Sabrina> ... ONIX have a code, english word and a description
<Sabrina> benws2: Wiley in New York have a UI in english, send
the policy to China and they should be able to see it in
Chinese
<Sabrina> Bill: Books are priced differently depending on the
country
<Sabrina> ... its not just the rights to license it could also
be is the purchaser allowed to by it in a particular country
POE.UC.27: Disambiguate access permission from copyright permission
(University Press)
<Sabrina> tzviya: Difference between license and copyright
<Sabrina> benws2: We need much more detail on this...
<Sabrina> paulj: Rights expression languages are not really
suitable for rights
<Sabrina> tzviya: Can you provide more details on what you
require?
<Sabrina> renato: fair use is not something that we are going
to express
<Sabrina> Bill: Looking for the ability to specify rights but
they could be superseded by copyright
POE.UC.28: Library collection management and access
<Sabrina> Bill: Looking for a translation into ODRL
<Sabrina> renato: We support this by promoting ODRL and
marketing it so that there is an awareness of the outcomes of
our work among these communities
POE.UC.29: Rights licensing for custom textbook publishing (higher
education publishers)
<Sabrina> tzviya: Ability to build their own book from chapters
from existing books and possible add their own content or
something from the web
<Sabrina> renato: can you give some more information on the
subscription model?
<Sabrina> tzviya: similar to the textbook use case... I
subscribe to the service, they have books on HTML and I am only
interested in 1 chapter...
<Sabrina> At the moment this is not automated
<Sabrina> Bill: You need a profile of the person, they are a
student of a university and the university has a subscription
<Sabrina> ivan: I try to look way ahead ... candidate
recommendation . way the technology is proberly tested
consistency and usability... you can not start thinking about
it early enough. We have use cases, and a real community, in
the future it would be good to ask that community to verify
what we have done
<Sabrina> ... The question is would BISG be willing to play
that role when the time comes
<Sabrina> Bill: In general yes, however it's hard to know if we
will be able to get people to do all that you require
<Sabrina> ... We should be able to get OCLC involved
<Sabrina> renato: Do they have to show implementations or just
confirmation that the model and vocab are ok
<simonstey>
[42]https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-implementations-201304
30/
[42] https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-implementations-20130430/
<Sabrina> ivan: each working group defines their own criteria
and asks the director if they are happy with our proposal
<simonstey> prov-o exit criteria ->
[43]https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria
[43] https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria
<Sabrina> Bill: It would be useful to know what the gaps are
<Sabrina> tzviya: Journal articles are the most important to us
<renato> POE thanks Tzviya and Bill
<simonstey> break? or do we continue?
<renato> 5 mins
<simonstey> kk
<victor> scribe: victor
Formal Semantics Note
<simonstey> [44]https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-sem/
[44] https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-sem/
simon: We can take this specification as a reference for our
spec
... second paragraph in section 1.1 is very clarifying
... formal semantics in ODRL can be stated as a set of
description logic axioms, as well.
... this would naturally solve policy aggregation, conflict
detection, etc. Enforcing is explicitly excluded.
<simonstey>
[45]https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-sem-20130430/#addition
al-axioms
[45]
https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-sem-20130430/#additional-axioms
simonstey: some conflicts can be avoided by declaring
appropriate axioms.
... there are, for example, conflicts related to the duties or
the constrains
benws2: the work is around the question of validity.
Sabrina: validity and conflicts.
<renato> new member: Konstantopoulos, Stasinos
Sabrina: a new ODRL member has much experience in formalizing.
(who?)
<renato> who is also interested
ivan: how is the current charter?
renato: only two documents to be Recommendation
ivan: but you have also in mind about 4 notes. There may not be
enough resources to actually edit the six documents.
... it is not tenable that one person can edit the documents in
their own. also, renato, as chair, may not be that much
involved.
Sabrina: a newly funded project will provide working force
ivan: only members of the WG can vote on the publication of the
note
renato: changes needed to write the two recommendations are
limited, as we don't start from the scratch.
victor: doing the formalization effort will improve the
recommendations anyway
ivan: i see other more urgent tasks, like moving from JSON to
JSON-LD
... this group has a strong bias towards RDF, and we do not
want to disband the web developers (JSON lovers)
benws2: the value of ODRL for Thomson-Reuters is easing the
task of validating compliance. For this regard, having a formal
semantics would be a great value.
ivan: no doubt about it. but can everything be accomplished?
simonstey: (on additional logical implications, and how
profiles can be improved if the note is made among other
benefits)
renato: in the whiteboard, lists the 6 documents
(actually seven)
ivan: there is much to be improved in the two recommendations
as they are. for newcomers, it may not be so immediatly
understandable
... they need a lot of editorial work to make them sellable
benws2: when I first approached, it took me much time
understanding ODRL.
ivan: they had the same problem in the Web Annotations group,
and they had to illustrate it with plentiful of examples
benws2: the best practices may help at making things
understandable
renato: we are moving in this direction, moving examples up
benws2: Renato, you should leave aside your years-experience
and describe everything with new eyes
... 24 years of experience in this business are a heavy bag
ivan: the annotations document is now an example of good
quality
<simonstey> lost you
<simonstey> no one on webex
<simonstey> back
ivan: owl and xml is less important
Serena: Renato should leave the lead on the model document
re-engineering to me, as I have a fresher view than Renato.
ivan: which are the other notes?
renato: best practices would be examples
ivan: why not in the github as naked examples?
benws2: there are patterns in the practical expressions. The
document would give context to the problem: "if this is your
business model, this is the pattern"
<renato> ACTION: serena review info model to support
"annotation model" style examples [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes.html#action01]
[46] http://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-27 - Review info model to support
"annotation model" style examples [on Serena Villata - due
2016-09-30].
benws2: there are many types of ODRL users. Some are 24 year
old techies, some are oldies who should understand.
victor: github repo may be useful for the ODRL mapping licenses
ivan: what is linked data profile?
victor: profile FOR linked data
ivan: i personally find it very nice, but indeed of least
priority
benws2: I voluneer to edit the "Best practices".
paulj: I volunteer to edit "Best practices" as well
<simonstey> if we provide them, wouldn't they need to be
audited/checked by a legal expert?
victor: legal experts may differ, also. it is a matter of
interpretatoin
renato: we need a github repo of licenses
Sabrina: we will contribute along our project
RESOLUTION: We remove the ODRL Mapping Licences to a github
repo referenced from the "Best Practices".
Sabrina: (and victor and serena) We cannot work on everything
at the same time, so we can postpone this activity
<simonstey> break?
<renato> yes
<renato> 1 hr
<renato> We are back
<Serena> scribe: Serena
general data protection regulation - Sabrina
Sabrina: I recently launched a new lab in Vienna
... general data protection regulation
H2020 project accepted together with Ben
<scribe> … new general data protection regulations to be
represented and model them ODRL to built on top of them
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: two scenarios: (1) policies and transparency:
who does what with my data
... (2) risk assessment for companies to address compliance
checkinh
... examples of rules to have e.g., explicit consent
... who is doing what with the data
... model quite close to ODRL: constraints, actions, etc are
the same
... you have obligations, and if you satisfy them then you're
compliant
... parties: data subject -> party, other people like data
protection officers, etc
... asset is personal data
... action is all regarding processing in the EU and outside
the EU
... sometimes you have dispensation e.g., unless it is in the
child interest etc
... the policy is the general data protection regulation, but
we want the link to the articles, in each article there are
many rules
... we will provide examples in n-triples
<simonstey> +q
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: if you hava a duty, and you fulfill the duty
then you have the permission to process the data
Sabrina: asset is personal data
<simonstey> there is a privacy type
renato: is this another kind of policy type?
Sabrina: this could be seen as a new policy type
... the H2020 project aims at designing a system to check
compliance
... we will have legal guidance
renato: do you have inheritance among policies?
<simonstey> odrl doesn't allow for multi-inheritance
Sabrina: regulations contains articles, paragraphs and then
duties
<renato> odrl can do "One Parent Policy to one or more Child
Policy entities"
renato: are there actions from this project?
<victor> ...
<simonstey> which doesn't mean that all of those subpolicies
belong together
benws2: every information with personal information can be the
"input" for this project
renato: new policy type -> regulation
<simonstey> how does the privacy type relate to all of that?
<simonstey> [47]http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-Privacy
[47] http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-Privacy
victor: for these policies it is important to keep provenance
<simonstey>
[48]https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/vocab/2.1/#section-21
[48] https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/vocab/2.1/#section-21
[49]https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/vocab/2.1/#section-21
[49] https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/vocab/2.1/#section-21
<renato> action sabrina define a new Regulation Policy Type
<trackbot> Created ACTION-28 - Define a new regulation policy
type [on Sabrina Kirrane - due 2016-09-30].
<simonstey> do we need the privacy type then actually?
<renato> yes, perhaps for more personal privacy polices
<simonstey> you dropped from webex
renato: use cases and requirements
... R.DM 04
[50]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#POE.R.DM.04_S
upport_versioning_policies
[50]
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#POE.R.DM.04_Support_versioning_policies
scribe: what is the action here?
... do we want to be back to the group?
... any other comment or question about UCR?
... jason-LD as undelines by Ivan has to be considered
ivan: having both jason and jason-ld encodings is superflous
... json-ld should be enough
... we should forget xml/html
... is there a fresh market for pure xml?
* thanks simonstey *
ivan: what we do now for the annotation, we actually have a
test suite with all examples converted from json-ld into turtle
benws2: do we have to show that there are implementations using
xml?
... we can ask in the community group
<renato> ACTION: renato ask WG/CG - who is using plain XML?
[recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes.html#action02]
[51] http://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-29 - Ask wg/cg - who is using plain
xml? [on Renato Iannella - due 2016-09-30].
ivan: I think that json and json-ld are the same
... and we all have to be careful to the discussion about using
the @id or not, etc
<renato> action stuart Can we only have a JSON-LD
serialisation? Will it impact RighstML?
<trackbot> Created ACTION-30 - Can we only have a json-ld
serialisation? will it impact righstml? [on Stuart Myles - due
2016-09-30].
ivan: each example needs to be encoded in json-ld in the
information model
... is there a plain to have the vocabulary defined in owl?
... what's in the current model?
... it says RDF/OWL encoding
... somebody did make the RDF/OWL triple ontology
... don't show examples with rdf/xml
<simonstey> +1 to ivan's point of view
ivan: we should not include rdf/xml in w3c recommendations
benws2: digital publishing people are claiming about the
translation (e.g. in japanese), then this should be in the owl
ontology
victor: who is going to do the translations?
ivan: we should not spend time on that
victor: question about the ontology connected to the formal
semantics, will it have the same set of axioms or a superset?
<simonstey> agreed
ivan: owl ontology normative or informative?
Sabrina: Phil suggested to have two recommendations, with many
of the items are not normative and other are
ivan: if we say "yes" we need to have consistency proved by at
least two tools
... which means that all the statements in all the examples
would be consistent with the ontology etc
victor: in favor of making it normaive
ivan: we have to keep in mind that if we decide to go for a
normative owl ontology than we will have to follow a certain
process to prove its consistency
Sabrina: then we will keep the non normative items right?
ivan: on the one hand, for end users it seems strange not to
have an owl ontology, on the other side having a normative
ontology with non normative items…
... let's go for the normative but complete
<renato> 15 min break
<renato> we've back
<benws2> We're about to restart.
<benws2> nick/benws
* :) *
renato: dates for the next working draft?
... any other issue to be discussed in the last hour?
... profile seems a good way to show odrl is used
... there is a whole section about the profile
<simonstey> +q
benws2: there are different levels of profiles
... we can automate the validation of licenses, for that we
need a formal semantics, these are different levels of profile
(profile in a profike)
simonstey: we have to be careful about the way profile works
ivan: we have to define what this MUST means?
... in normative terms
renato: there is no machine readable representation
ivan: I should have the right to ignore it
... I would put all the statements in stronger terms, e.g.,
"some requirements…" -> "we must document…" otherwise it is not
normative
<simonstey> a core set of concepts that MUST be provided/used
by all profiles?
ivan: why having two URIs?
... we're talking about an rdf model
... xml is a possible serialization, but the model itself is in
rdf
victor: the ontology plus the text is the proposal
ivan: but the heart of it is just rdf
... don't use "deprecated" in the profile text
renato: what about a profile being machine readable?
benws2: it is optional, some profiles are incredible
lightweight
... we should allow people to come to the level they prefer
... the best would be to point to some examples of profiles
<simonstey> I dont think you should
ivan: will SHACL become a rec?
simonstey: next year probably
renato: can I use it for reasoning?
simonstey: non actually for reasoning
... you can use it to check the profiles
Horizontal Reviews
ivan: horizontal review
... we have to ask the experts to review the document
... I'm not sure about security, but being a vocabulary I don't
think it's an issue
... privacy issues
... internationalization
... in the annotation group, we made a mistake and we contacted
them too late
... ideally we should have a model document by January to have
a review in January
... not a final version but a reviewable one
... what we can do now is to look at the new version of the
information model to avoid internationalization issues
<renato> action phila propose date/time for the virtual meeting
in Nov/Dec
<trackbot> Created ACTION-31 - Propose date/time for the
virtual meeting in nov/dec [on Phil Archer - due 2016-09-30].
<renato> Proposed next F2F in March 2017
<simonstey> lost you
<renato> yes
<simonstey> see you guys!
<simonstey> bye bye
<renato> thanks Simon!
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: renato ask WG/CG - who is using plain XML?
[recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: serena review info model to support "annotation
model" style examples [recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes.html#action01]
[52] http://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes.html#action02
[53] http://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes.html#action01
Summary of Resolutions
1. [54]POE.R.V.10 accepted
2. [55]POE.R.V.11 satisfied
3. [56]POE.R.V.12 Satisfied
4. [57]inlcude Dublin Core Source as example
5. [58]accept that scope should have a new operator to
indicate reference
6. [59]To be included as part of a Note
7. [60]discuss later
8. [61]included best practice in a non nomative note
9. [62]not needed now
10. [63]satisfied
11. [64]satisfied
12. [65]No action
13. [66]include best practice in a non nomative note
14. [67]We remove the ODRL Mapping Licences to a github repo
referenced from the "Best Practices".
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 23 September 2016 16:07:40 UTC