[Minutes] 2017 02 13

The minutes of this week's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2017/02/13-poe-minutes with a snapshot below.

Please note that the hope is that next week's meeting will include a 
vote to publish the model and vocab as Working Drafts and that further 
changes after that will be driven by external comments (what we used to 
call Last Call).

Therefore, do please read the two docs before next week. If you can't 
make the meeting, you might want to indicate by e-mail whether or not 
you are happy for the docs to be formally published.



   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

13 Feb 2017

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170213

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/02/13-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           renato, ivan, scribe, phila, michaelS, victor, Sabrina,
           CarolineB

    Regrets
           Serena, Stuart, Ben, Brian

    Chair
           renato

    Scribe
           simonstey

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]approval of last week's minutes
          2. [6]2 rec track documents
          3. [7]vocab document
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      * [9]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <renato> Plenty of snow - just the 40 degree heat melts it on
    entry to our atmosphere :-)

    <scribe> scribe: simonstey

    <scribe> chair: renato

approval of last week's minutes

    <renato> [10]https://www.w3.org/2017/02/06-poe-minutes.html

      [10] https://www.w3.org/2017/02/06-poe-minutes.html

    renato: hearing no objections -> minutes approved

2 rec track documents

    renato: comments from simonstey regarding introduction of
    attributes

    <renato> [11]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/

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

    renato: another issue discussed last week was json-ld context
    ... got some advise/comments from gregg kellogg
    ... has anyone any further questions/comments regarding the
    info model?

    <renato> [12]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/105

      [12] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/105

    renato: we plan to publish both documents as WD

    <phila> simonstey: There are issues in the PDF that are
    implementation specific, they don't provide general info

    <renato> simon: undefined actions section -
    [13]http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#undefined

      [13] http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#undefined

    <renato> simon: what is an undefined action? too vague?

    <renato> ...implementation specific

    renato: this feature was added way back
    ... when ODRL was used more in closed environments, rather than
    open world scenarios
    ... I propose to mark it as "at risk"

    phila: the phrase "at risk" has a specific conotation
    ... I would mark it as issue

    <phila> Sounds sensible to me

    <phila> phila: Maybe also add a sentence to the Status of the
    Document

    <renato> Proposal: mark section 3.1.4 as an issue - the feature
    maybe removed in future version

    +1

    <phila> +1

    <ivan> +1

    <Sabrina> +1

    <michaelS> +1

    <victor> +1

    RESOLUTION: mark section 3.1.4 as an issue - the feature maybe
    removed in future version

    renato: anyone has any other questions/comments reg. the info
    model?

    phila: is that the only open issue?

    renato: yes, other than that only editorial ones left

vocab document

    <renato> [14]http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/ODRL22.jsonld

      [14] http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/ODRL22.jsonld

    renato: we now know how a json-ld context should actually look
    like
    ... the only other issues for the vocab (apart from the
    json-ld) are a few little ones
    ... 1) issue 101

    <renato> [15]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/101

      [15] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/101

    renato: there are 4 actions that all end with "to an audience"
    ... I would like to propose removing the phrase "to an
    audience" from all 4

    michaelS: adding this phrase was highly recommended by a big
    german law firm back then
    ... there's a difference between "playing" for a small audience
    or a big one

    renato: you might be giving away too much permission by having
    this phrase
    ... plus, we won't be able to have a "private" use version of
    play

    michaelS: what would be a use case for that?

    renato: [explaining a use case]

    michaelS: maybe we need a new action?
    ... the assignee isn't necessarily the beneficiary of a
    permission
    ... we could require the definition of a recipient

    renato: if you explicitly mention "to an audience", it implies
    that you have the right to publicly play it to an audience

    michaelS: there should be a distinction between private&public
    use

    renato: most of the action can only be performed by the
    assignee
    ... maybe a profile could implement such a feature

    michaelS: looking at the old version of the vocab, present is
    defined as parent action of display
    ... presenting something implies (imo) presenting to someone
    ... rather than only to yourself

    phila: there's def. a distinction between presenting something
    to yourself and presenting something to a stadium

    <renato> Proposal: remove "to an audience" from Present terms,
    display, play, text2speech

    phila: (a stadium with people in it)

    +1

    <Sabrina> +1

    <ivan> 0

    <renato> +1

    <CarolineB> +1

    <michaelS> +1

    RESOLUTION: remove "to an audience" from Present terms,
    display, play, text2speech

    +q

    <renato> [16]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/103

      [16] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/103

    <michaelS> The actions present, display, play and textToSpeech
    should include a note requiring to add a receipient party as a
    private or open audience.

    simonstey: mentions different semantics of action "stream" for
    data community
    ... streaming data vs streaming movies/audio/...

    <renato> proposal: Add "stream" to action vocab - broad
    definition - not as a narrower term of Present

    <Sabrina> +1

    <CarolineB> +1

    <renato> +1

    0

    <ivan> +1

    <michaelS> 0

    <phila> +1 although, again, I don't like enumerated lists in a
    vocab

    renato: will work on the specific def. of stream

    RESOLUTION: Add "stream" to action vocab - broad definition -
    not as a narrower term of Present

    +1 to phil's comment

    <victor> 0

    <michaelS> q

    victor: I opened a new issue few minutes ago
    ... the ontology isn't OWL-DL

    <renato> Victor's issue:
    [17]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/106

      [17] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/106

    victor: by removing rdfs:range we could make it OWL-DL
    ... I could enrich this issue and propose changes

    <ivan> yes

    victor: the specs can still change after next week right?

    renato: you bet

    phila: just for clarification -> the diagrams in both vocabs
    are slightly different.. why's that?

    renato: [explains diff.]

    phila: e.g., "status" in constraints isn't part of the figure
    in the vocab spec.. why?
    ... maybe worth considering adding an explanatory sentence to
    the figure in the vocab
    ... basically reiterating what you just said renatio

    michaelS: status is "non-normative" what does that mean?
    ... what's the difference in relevance?
    ... we have two main actions -> use & transfer
    ... where transfer now seems to be non-normative

    renato: based on the implementation survey we did last year, we
    derived this distinction
    ... we have to have a number of implementations that implement
    the whole spec

    michaelS: my concern is that someone who's not familiar with
    the W3C process might be inclined to reinterpret
    "non-normative" terms

    phila: the distinction between normative<->non-normative might
    have to be recast
    ... and we may want to consider change that to core/extension
    ... will give both specs a more thorough readthrough until next
    week

    <CarolineB> *me - sorry have to go now

    [discussing generalities]

    ivan: instead of discussing generalities, the question is
    whether there are at least two different groups that implement
    e.g. display
    ... if this can be proven, there is no point in not having it
    normative
    ... at this point we could also have certain terms being "at
    risk"
    ... [relevant for CR]

    michaelS: I would like to have an equal opportunity for all
    actions, as people may tend to avoid actions that are denoted
    as being "non-normative"

    renato: plan for next week -> vote on both documents
    ... AOB=

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [18]mark section 3.1.4 as an issue - the feature maybe
        removed in future version
     2. [19]remove "to an audience" from Present terms, display,
        play, text2speech
     3. [20]Add "stream" to action vocab - broad definition - not
        as a narrower term of Present

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 13 February 2017 13:44:46 UTC