- From: Sabrina Kirrane <sabrina.kirrane@wu.ac.at>
- Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 10:06:00 +0200
- To: public-poe-wg@w3.org
Before midday on Monday and Tuesday works for me. Regards, Sabrina On 01/04/2017 10:30, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel wrote: > > 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, VÃctor RodrÃguez 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 >>>> >>>> >>>>> VÃctor >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> El 27/03/2017 a las 18:32, VÃctor RodrÃguez 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, >>>>>> VÃctor >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> VÃctor RodrÃguez-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 >>> >>> >> > > -- Postdoctoral researcher, Institute for Information Business and Institute for Management Information Systems, Vienna University of Economics and Business Tel: +43-1-31336-4494 E-mail: sabrina.kirrane [at] wu.ac.at
Received on Sunday, 2 April 2017 08:06:30 UTC