Re: Formal Semantics

Fine for me on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday morning.
Thursday and Friday are off for me (Eastern).

Víctor

El 31/03/2017 19:01, Ivan Herman escribió:
> On Fri, March 31, 2017 9:27 am, Simon Steyskal wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> Go ahead without me. I will not be available until the 11th, and there
>>> is no reason to wait for me. I can always comment on the outcome using
>>> the usual channels…
>> I think it makes more sense to just postpone the call such that all of
>> us can participate. After the 11th, when are you available again Ivan?
> I am back home on Monday the 10th, and I am available for the rest of the week, modulo other calls.
>
> Are all potential participants from Europe? Or Europe and Australia? Because if so, we can also schedule a call before
> lunch on Wed or Thursday, for example; that may be easier.
>
> Ivan
>
>
>> br simon
>>
>> Am 2017-03-31 10:07, schrieb Ivan Herman:
>>>> On 31 Mar 2017, at 09:00, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel
>>>> <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I see we cannot set a call with more than two participants.
>>>> Shall we start speak speaking in a first call Simon and I and then in
>>>> a second call with Ivan?
>>>> Ivan when are you available?
>>>>
>>> Go ahead without me. I will not be available until the 11th, and there
>>> is no reason to wait for me. I can always comment on the outcome using
>>> the usual channels…
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>>
>>>> Víctor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> El 27/03/2017 a las 18:32, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel escribió:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have created a doodle poll to see when can we meet to discuss the
>>>>> scope and ambition of the formal semantics note. Link:
>>>>> https://beta.doodle.com/poll/ricy6h4iha3b5s4z
>>>>>
>>>>> I have set a fixed time (12.30 GMT) and several different days trying
>>>>> to concile the different constraints you have emailed already.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Víctor
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> El 27/03/2017 a las 15:35, Phil Archer escribió:
>>>>>> As ever, the minutes of today's meeting are at
>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2017/03/27-poe-minutes with a text snapshot
>>>>>> below. Thanks Michael for scribing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Main topic today was Sabrina's new use case of modelling the GDPR
>>>>>> using a profile of ODRL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 27 March 2017
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    [2]Agenda [3]IRC log
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170327
>>>>>>       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/03/27-poe-irc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Attendees
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Present
>>>>>>           benws, benws110, ivan, michaelS, phila, renato, Sabrina,
>>>>>>           Serena, smyles, victor
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Regrets
>>>>>>           Brian, Caroline, Simon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Chair
>>>>>>           Ben
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Scribe
>>>>>>           michaelS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contents
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      * [4]Meeting Minutes
>>>>>>          1. [5]Last week's minutes
>>>>>>          2. [6]New Use Case
>>>>>>          3. [7]Deliverables
>>>>>>          4. [8]best practices
>>>>>>          5. [9]open Actions
>>>>>>          6. [10]London F2F
>>>>>>      * [11]Summary of Action Items
>>>>>>      * [12]Summary of Resolutions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meeting Minutes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <benws110> nick benws
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <victor> hi all
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <renato> hi victor
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    scribe michaelS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last week's minutes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: anybody want to raise an issue with last week's minutes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <phila> [NOTUC]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <phila> [13]Last week's minutes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      [13] https://www.w3.org/2017/03/20-poe-minutes.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Resolved: last week's minutes approved
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <renato> [14]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/
>>>>>>    Use_Cases#POE.UC.37_Representing_regulations_using_ODRL
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      [14]
>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#POE.UC.37_Representing_regulations_using_ODRL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New Use Case
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: introduced the Use Case
>>>>>>    … it models the EU General Data Protection Regulation
>>>>>>    … it needs to cover that at a generic level but also in details
>>>>>>    … Article 12 added as an example
>>>>>>    … this article shows the important use of references to other
>>>>>>    articles
>>>>>>    … the numbering of the articles has at least two levels
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: any comments on that so far?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: does this requirement belong to a profile or to the
>>>>>>    general ODRL model?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: this is a decision by this group
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    renato: what does "refer to another article" mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: that are dependencies - look at Article 12. This may
>>>>>>    transform to many duties.
>>>>>>    … to check if Article 12 is fullfilled the fulfillment of other
>>>>>>    articles is required
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    phila: GDPR is very important it would be a big PR win if ODRL
>>>>>>    could show that it can cover it.
>>>>>>    … key question: is ODRL is a good tool for that purpose.
>>>>>>    Sabrina do you feel that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: ODRL is not a bad fit. We need to specify obligations
>>>>>>    and constraints
>>>>>>    … There is work on taxonomies by other parties but less
>>>>>>    fitting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    renato: we could promote this as a profile. This would serve to
>>>>>>    explain how to create a profile
>>>>>>    … and this profile could be shown to a wide audience.
>>>>>>    … the relationships between the constraints and duties is
>>>>>>    demandingö
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: we have dependencies between the duties, we have
>>>>>>    constraints on duties, actions and parties
>>>>>>    … supported to create a profile for that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: to show that we could express regulations and licences
>>>>>>    by the same language would be fine
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    phil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    phila: supported using ODRL for this purpose
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: we are basically defining obligiations = duties =
>>>>>>    complying with the regulations
>>>>>>    … if we run into problems we will come back to this group
>>>>>>    … when it comes to constraints: there are discretational ones
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    smyles: suggested to model optional constraints as permissions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: that's not exactly the intention of the GDPR
>>>>>>    … there are statements like a recommendation - and we don't
>>>>>>    want to omit them
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    renato: is thinking what this could look like in code:
>>>>>>    leftOperand say you may or may not use an icon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: need for a discretional constraint: it would be good
>>>>>>    to meet this constraint but it doesn't stop the policy
>>>>>>    … if it is not met
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: for her and Simon some constraints a bit fuzzy, needs
>>>>>>    deeper reviews
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    smyles: we may add a concept of recommendation = if you can,
>>>>>>    you should do that
>>>>>>    … there could be levels of recommendation: strongly recommended
>>>>>>    ... and more
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: will review this suggestion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <renato> [15]https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      [15] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <phila> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
>>>>>>    "SHALL
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <phila> NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <phila> "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
>>>>>>    described in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <phila> RFC 2119.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    phila: RFC2119 is a standard specifying things like that -
>>>>>>    could help
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: Dispensation = something is required, but there is a
>>>>>>    dispensation under specific condiditions.
>>>>>>    … and some articles say "you are not allowed" others say
>>>>>>    "unless party X allows that"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <victor> Dispensation: a : an exemption from a law or from an
>>>>>>    impediment, vow, or oath may be granted a dispensation from the
>>>>>>    rule b : a formal authorization requested a dispensation to
>>>>>>    form another lodge
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: in fact: an exception on an exception
>>>>>>    … may also be used
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    renato: went over some more details of transforming DGPR into
>>>>>>    ODRL
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    victor: thinks like that can be expressed by ODRL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: we are looking not only at GDPR but also legal
>>>>>>    regulations in general - is the existing ODRL data model work
>>>>>>    for us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: what are "features"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    victor: we could think about synonyms for hardwired constraints
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: two more things: "Feature" = article 12 has various
>>>>>>    obligations, some are well defined, some don't stand on their
>>>>>>    own.
>>>>>>    … we are looking at conjunctions and disjunctions in this
>>>>>>    context
>>>>>>    … transparency is the conjunction of all of them - we call them
>>>>>>    Features at the moment
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: we need additional constraints on the asset - they
>>>>>>    will span across multiple duties
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    renato: ODRL scope could work
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: agreed
>>>>>>    … we have an issue with the type of processing - e.g. how
>>>>>>    personal data may be used for marketing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    smyles: the purpose is to define the nature of a party - right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: yes, depending on who you are rules may apply
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    smyles: why not to split up in constraints for group A and
>>>>>>    group B of persons
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    smyles: wondered if inheritance could be used
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: the controllers for different purposes are different
>>>>>>    … we look at what's there and then will come back to this group
>>>>>>    … the Wiki space could be used for discussions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: timeline?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: there are different groups of work: e.g. transforming
>>>>>>    the article and the sub-points - but that's not very usable.
>>>>>>    … in a next step obligations have to be pulled out of the
>>>>>>    articles - and that's a big work, will take months.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: does this timeline align with the ODRL timeline?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    renato: do we need a new policy type "regulation"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sabrina: yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: supported to use Wikipages for working on the
>>>>>>    transformation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deliverables
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <renato> [16]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      [16] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    renato: went over [17]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/
>>>>>>    Deliverables
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      [17] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <renato> [18]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
>>>>>>    public-poe-comments/2017Mar/0012.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      [18]
>>>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-comments/2017Mar/0012.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    renato: we got a reply from EDRLabs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <renato> [19]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/118
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      [19] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/118
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    renato: raised some concerns regarding periods
>>>>>>    … this needs an update of the definitions of date/time and
>>>>>>    period constraints
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    renato: re Horizontal reviews:
>>>>>>    … any news from Brian?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: has sent a reminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    renato: reviews seem to be on track
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: refered to a proposoal of Victor to hold a special
>>>>>>    meeting
>>>>>>    … = a call
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: asked Victor to launch a Doodgle survey for finding date
>>>>>>    and time
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best practices
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: tried to reach out to James from Catapult, but the email
>>>>>>    did not work
>>>>>>
>>>>>> open Actions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: only 3 on the issue tracker
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <phila> s/RESOLVED: last week's minutes approved//
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <renato> [20]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/114
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      [20] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/114
>>>>>>
>>>>>> London F2F
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: open issue is providing hotel rooms at TR rates - but
>>>>>>    Sabrina may have an alternative
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    victor: would appreciate to have times for the agenda items
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    bens: starting time 10am - ok?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    renato: agenda will be based on requests from group members and
>>>>>>    currently ongoing work
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <ivan> will there be possibiltiies for dial in?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: suggested 5:30pm as closing time
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    <ivan> thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: it will be possible to dial in too
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: AOB?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    benws: none was raised - bye
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Summary of Action Items
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Summary of Resolutions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     1. [21]last week's minutes approved
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
>>>> D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
>>>> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
>>>> ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos
>>>> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
>>>>
>>>> Campus de Montegancedo s/n
>>>> Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
>>>> Tel. (+34) 91336 3753
>>>> Skype: vroddon3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>>> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>> ---
>> DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
>> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
>>
>> www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys
>>
>>
>


-- 
Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informática
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 91336 3672
Skype: vroddon3

Received on Saturday, 1 April 2017 08:30:46 UTC