- From: Serena Villata <serena.villata@inria.fr>
- Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 22:23:24 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
Hi Phil, thanks for the minutes. I'm not among the "Present" attendees while I'm listed as Scribe, and I was there :) All the best, Serena ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org> > À: "POE WG" <public-poe-wg@w3.org> > Envoyé: Vendredi 23 Septembre 2016 18:07:29 > Objet: [Minutes] 2016-09-23 > > 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 Sunday, 25 September 2016 20:23:57 UTC