- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:37:52 +0100
- To: POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting are at https://www.w3.org/2017/04/10-poe-minutes with a snapshot below. There'll be an extra meeting to discuss formal semantics tomorrow at 14:30 CEST. Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference 10 April 2017 [2]Agenda [3]IRC log [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170410 [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/04/10-poe-irc Attendees Present benws, CarolineB, ivan, michaelS, phila, renato, Serena, simonstey, smyles, victor Regrets Chair Ben Scribe simonstey Contents * [4]Meeting Minutes 1. [5]Admin 2. [6]Comments received 3. [7]issue 22 4. [8]formal semantics 5. [9]best practices * [10]Summary of Action Items * [11]Summary of Resolutions Meeting Minutes Admin benws: last week's minutes Resolved: Last week's minutes at [12]https://www.w3.org/2017/ 04/03-poe-minutes approved [12] https://www.w3.org/2017/04/03-poe-minutes benws: hearing no objections - approved! Comments received <renato> [13]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables [13] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables renato: the only thing we are really waiting for is horizontal review … which brian's doing benws: haven't heard back from him <renato> [14]https://github.com/w3c/poe/ issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Wide+Review%22 [14] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:"Wide+Review" renato: I don't think we've sent out any other wide review requests though benws: anything we want to discuss reg. already received feedback? <renato> [15]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/123 [15] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/123 renato: I tagged related issues with "Wide Review" … there's an existing use case for that (uc24) benws: if we include that term, and at the time the implementation reports come in noone implements it -> do we have to exclude it? phila: short answer, yes … such terms can be flagged as features "at risk" … which is relevant for going to CR phila: we could also ask them to point us to others using that term renato: synchronize is becoming more and more relevant for the music industry <renato> [16]https://github.com/w3c/poe/ issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Needs+WG+Decision%22 [16] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:"Needs+WG+Decision" renato: I would like to have an ODRL profile for the music industry in the future <renato> [17]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/122 [17] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/122 <renato> simon: spec says: to get a permission you must fufill duty <renato> ... but some actions are not applicable..such as "uninstall" <renato> ...duty does not specify when to perform the duty <renato> ... you should agree beforehand when to perform the duty michaelS: having been involved in these discussions, my thinking is -> on the commercial level you e.g. receive a good and have a due that to pay its price … under the assumption that the price will be paid … so that's a real use case <victor> "must be satisfied" is time neutral, namely, it can refer to both a future and a past action. [discussing details on duties and their satisfiability] <renato> simon: the permission is only valid only after the duty is fulfilled <renato> simon: suggestion: if there is not specific time in a constraint, the semantics are you agree to delete the asset, then the permission is valid <renato> ... change the semantics of the vocab term (eg "has agreed to delete") benws: another approach would be to say that as long as a duty doesn't have a temporal constraint attached <renato> ben: or add "..unless the duty constraint has a temporal conditions" benws: you can only agree to do respective duty <renato> simon: you fulfil the duty if you agree what the duty says <renato> simon: ..indicate a requirements that is *agreed* to be satisfied <renato> [18]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/22 [18] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/22 benws: moving on to inheritance and overriden entities issue 22 renato: simonstey raised this issue … proposing to remove "inheritRelation" from the core model <victor> I have never used inheritance relations and have no opinion on that. smyles: I'm fine with it being removed.. I've never seen a pratical use of it anyway michaelS: agreed renato: we'll then remove it Resolved: remove odrl:inheritRelation from ODRL victor: do we plan to include SHACL shapes to the ODRL ontology? phila: although you can have valid/invalid policies, it's not a good thing to be dependend on other WG formal semantics ivan: I haven't gotten any invites for a call tmrw victor: same time as today? <victor> 12.30 GMT then? ivan: should work for me simonstey: +1 <victor> +1 ivan: but we don't have a Webex set up either ivan: I'll set one up and notify the group best practices benws: victor and myself had a call last week … we tried to indentify what ODRL profiles actually want to be … it's important to emphasize that ODRL policies do not replace actual contracts phila: yes, that's very important stuff … we need to be both careful and confident at the same time benws: the best practices document will talk about challenges of using ODRL for expressing e.g. licenses … it will only use fragments of licenses phila: so you probably need ficticious licenses for examples <renato> CC-BY ! phila: I want to have CC-BY <renato> [19]https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#provenace [19] https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#provenace <victor> You may want to check this: <victor> [20]http://purl.oclc.org/NET/rdflicense/cc-by2.0.ttl [20] http://purl.oclc.org/NET/rdflicense/cc-by2.0.ttl benws: probably just talking about adding PROV-O concepts <victor> By comparison, you may want to use the CreativeCommons version, which can obtained as RDFa at the official URI. phila: thanks for the example, I wouldn't include all of the license text though … maybe also have something in the title that explicitly states that this is Victor's interpretation of CC-BY <victor> You may want to see the Turtle extracted by the W3C RDF distiller of the same license by the original CreativeCommons publishers if you click here: [21]https:// www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/ extract?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Flicenses%2Fby%2 F2.0&format=turtle&rdfagraph=output&vocab_expansion=false&rdfa_ lite=false&embedded_rdf=true&space_preserve=true&vocab_cache=tr ue&vocab_cache_report=false&vocab_cache_refresh=false [21] https://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/extract?uri=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0&format=turtle&rdfagraph=output&vocab_expansion=false&rdfa_lite=false&embedded_rdf=true&space_preserve=true&vocab_cache=true&vocab_cache_report=false&vocab_cache_refresh=false renato: [mentions smart contracts in that context] <victor> UK's Open Government Licenses are also machine-readable <victor> [22]https://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/ extract?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalarchives.gov.uk%2Fdoc%2Fop en-government-licence%2Fversion%2F3%2F&format=turtle&rdfagraph= output&vocab_expansion=false&rdfa_lite=false&embedded_rdf=true& space_preserve=true&vocab_cache=true&vocab_cache_report=false&v ocab_cache_refresh=false [22] https://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/&format=turtle&rdfagraph=output&vocab_expansion=false&rdfa_lite=false&embedded_rdf=true&space_preserve=true&vocab_cache=true&vocab_cache_report=false&vocab_cache_refresh=false <michaelS> -1 <CarolineB> +1 <phila> PROPOSED: Move meeting back an hour benws: should we have a quick strawpoll regarding meeting time? <smyles> +0 <phila> 0 (I don't mind) 0 +1 <victor> 0 (I don't mind) benws: discuss again enxt week <renato> PROPOSAL: not accepted (for now) Summary of Action Items Summary of Resolutions 1. [23]Last week's minutes at https://www.w3.org/2017/04/ 03-poe-minutes approved 2. [24]remove odrl:inheritRelation from ODRL
Received on Monday, 10 April 2017 13:37:48 UTC