[Minutes] 2017 04 03

The minutes of today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2017/04/03-poe-minutes with a text snapshot below.

Main topic of conversation was around the provision of a test suite and 
what this means for the WG.



   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

03 April 2017

    [2]Agenda [3]IRC log

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170403
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/04/03-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           benws_, michaelS, phila, renato, sabrina, simonstey,
           smyles

    Regrets
           Brian, Ivan, Serena, Victor

    Chair
           Renato

    Scribe
           Sabrina

Contents

      * [4]Meeting Minutes
          1. [5]Last week's minutes
          2. [6]Wide Review
          3. [7]Define and setup testing
          4. [8]Notes
          5. [9]Open Actions
          6. [10]F2F London
          7. [11]Issues on the github
          8. [12]AOB
      * [13]Summary of Action Items
      * [14]Summary of Resolutions

Meeting Minutes

    <renato> [15]https://www.w3.org/2017/03/27-poe-minutes

      [15] https://www.w3.org/2017/03/27-poe-minutes

Last week's minutes

    <phila> [Nothing heard]

    Any comments on the last minutes, otherwise I take silence as
    approval

    Accepted

    Resolved: Last week's minutes accepted

Wide Review

    Update on the wide and horizontal reviews

    <renato> [16]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables

      [16] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables

    Renato: Just waiting for feedback. Ben did you speak to Brian
    about the internationalisation

    Michael: Would it help to indicate who has replied. I have done
    this.

    <renato> [17]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/118

      [17] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/118

    Renato: Probably a good idea. I have done this the other way
    around from the issue. Good idea to populate both lists

    renato: Back tht einternationalisation

    benws_: I haven't had a chance yet. I will followup.

    renato: Nothing else to report

Define and setup testing

    renato: After we get the feedback we need to setup things in
    order to get to CR e.g. leader for testing

    phila: We haven't talked about it in a while
    … we need independent implementation that work the same way -
    one way is to setup a test suite - including inputs and outputs
    … This can be another note or maybe even a github repo
    … A set of machine readable policies and demonstrate that there
    is more that one implementation - given the same input we get
    the same output

    Renato: How would that look for us given we don't do any
    processing

    benws_: We are using a validator for the terms that we use...
    not the whole vocabulary

    phila: Each individual piece of software does not need to cover
    everything

    benws_: Do we need to make this public

    phila: No it doesn't need to be public, you just need to give
    us the information

    smyles: We had an ODRL engine with 3 things for testing - 1)
    the policy, 2) the result (yes, no or maybe) and 3) the context
    (who is the assignee, what country or city are they from, what
    action are they trying to perform)
    … This was enough for us

    benws_: It sounds like you were testing a processing model.
    However we need to syntactically validate policies.

    <phila> "This will require the ODRL Policy to be interpreted
    with the additional information identified by the URI."

    benws_: is that correct Phil

    phila: Just did a search for interpret - points to a concrete
    example - how one choses to use this information is out of
    scope for the working group
    … this is perfectly ok, however the uses need to be consistent
    and we must show they are consistent with one another

    <renato> The processing model for Constraint Relations
    includes:

    benws_: Sounds like a processing model

    renato: Points to the 9 steps listed in the processing model

    <renato> [18]https://w3c.github.io/poe/
    model/#constraint-relations

      [18] https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#constraint-relations

    renato: Put up a test e.g. to say expressions need to be atomic
    … There are a few points were we can pull out a processing
    model and turn them into a text case

    benws_: We can check is this a valid piece of ODRL and does it
    allow me to take this action
    … the 2nd is more enforcement
    … I guess we need to avoid this

    phila: Apart from being valid RDF, what is valid ORDL

    benws_: Enforcement of the information model

    phila: Yes they are different.

    <phila> ShEx or SHACL

    phila: Vaidation could be done in various ways 1) Shacl and 2)
    ShEx

    The group proposes to the director what the exit criteria
    should be

    Phil: You could suggest multiple instances (at least twice) of
    all of the terms
    … For core terms they should of course be used much more
    … Plus examples of real live ODRL policies
    … It would also be good to indicate the type of uses we've
    heard about that would be good aswell (e..g what Ben and
    Stewart are doing)
    … Details of real world valid use

    benws_: What needs to be in the tests

    phila: All the terms and all the constraints
    … build some kind of software and test against it

    renato: ... build the tests including invalid tests

    phila: yes

    renato: does the test suite need to be complete before the F2F
    … How much needs to be complete by May

    phila: It doesn't need to be complete, it should be started
    … with the experience in this group it should not take too long
    … plus you might find that you need to add to it it later when
    you are in CR

    smyles: I would like to remind the group that ODRL is not just
    RDF
    … We will also need to do XML validation

    <phila> +1 to smyles

    smyles: It would be useful to evaluate engines that process
    ODRL and when 2 different engines process ODRL they come to the
    same answer
    … this would be ambitious by May but ultimately very helpful

    renato: It depends on how complete it needs to be
    … however this would give the director confidence
    … we need to ask the group if someone would like to lead this
    piece of work
    … so that we have some test cases for the F2F meeting in May

    smyles: Is the challenge organising the work or doing the
    testing?

    renato: This is really about managing the process (getting the
    test cases ready to go)

    phila: I could have a go... I'm not sure if I can do the whole
    thing but I could certainly write some examples
    … Sabrina are building a parser as part of SPECIAL
    … We are modelling at the moment, so if depends on how that
    goes

    renato: Thanks Phil for kicking that off
    … any other questions on the testing regime?

    Nope

Notes

    Any update Simon on the formal semantics

    <simonstey> will have a call in the next weeks

    <phila> Sabrina: We have exchanged some e-mails about formal
    semantics. We'll kick off next week when Ivan is back from WWW
    in Perth

    renato: Ben any update on the best practices

    <renato> [19]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open

      [19] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open

Open Actions

    renato: Ben and Phil and update on your actions

    phila: No update on the accessibility usecase

    smyles: Question on versioning

    <renato> [20]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/
    Meetings:London2017

      [20] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:London2017

F2F London

    benws_: I can confirm the address is correct

    renato: I have prepared a draft agenda... wide review,
    horizontal review etc...

    benws_: Renato will you attend in person?

    renato: I'm not sure at this point

    <renato> [21]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues

      [21] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues

Issues on the github

    michaelS: There are currently 18 issues, however it is not
    clear how these issues can be resolved

    <michaelS> 18 open issues

    renato: We should talk about some of these next week -
    especially the ones that say need working group decision
    … we could maybe tackle 2 per call

    <renato> [22]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/22

      [22] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/22

    renato: example is number 22
    … proposal from Simon to remove the inherit relation
    … this is probably something that the editors can not decide as
    it is really a group decision

    phila: All of these need to be closed before seeking CR
    transition
    … one relates to the usecase document. Do we plan to do more
    work on the usecase document? If so we can do this and
    republish the usecase document. If not we should close it and
    say why.

    renato: We hope to close as many as possible before the F2F

    <simonstey> I'll address the ucr issue until next week

    renato: it would be good to at least discuss them before the
    F2F

    <simonstey> I encourage everyone to read through the spec and
    raise issues themselves

    renato: I would like to propose a couple of github issues per
    week for discussion on the weekly call
    … will start with the ones that say need working group decision

AOB

    <renato> IPTC

    Phil: I have a talk at the IPTC, will anyone else be there?
    … I will endeavour to prepare the presentation in advance and
    get your feedback

    smyles: I have been briefing the IPTC group for sometime on
    ODRL and now POE

    michaelS: I think it would help to clarify what the W3C review
    requirements are, the IPTC people will not be familiar with
    these

    <simonstey> [23]https://www.w3.org/2008/04/scribe.html

      [23] https://www.w3.org/2008/04/scribe.html

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [24]Last week's minutes accepted

Received on Monday, 3 April 2017 13:25:29 UTC