- 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