- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:33:14 +0000
- To: POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting are at
https://www.w3.org/2017/01/16-poe-minutes with a snapshot below.
Thanks to Serena for scribing.
Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
16 Jan 2017
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2017/01/16-poe-irc
Attendees
Present
renato, ivan, phila, Brian_Ulicny, Serena, michaelS,
CarolineB
Regrets
Stuart, Ben, Sabrina, Simon
Chair
renato
Scribe
Serena
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Deliverables Plan
* [5]Summary of Action Items
* [6]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
scribenick Serena
<scribe> Scribe: Serena
<renato> [7]https://www.w3.org/2017/01/09-poe-minutes.html
[7] https://www.w3.org/2017/01/09-poe-minutes.html
Proposal: approve last meeting minutes
RESOLUTION: last minutes meeting approved
<renato>
[8]https://github.com/w3c/poe/labels/Needs%20WG%20Decision
[8] https://github.com/w3c/poe/labels/Needs WG Decision
Issues:
[9]https://github.com/w3c/poe/labels/Needs%20WG%20Decision
[9] https://github.com/w3c/poe/labels/Needs WG Decision
<renato>
[10]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2017Jan/
0004.html
[10]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2017Jan/0004.html
renato: let's start with issue #82
... [11]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/82
... in the example multiple actions, parties and assets are
expressed at policy level
... it's basically a shortcut
... we end up wit the same thing if we expand the "short"
version of the policy
... this is the proposal
[11] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/82
phila: it makes sense, how are you going to express ?
renato: the narrative could be that the two policies are
semantically equivalent
phila: this should be added into a Processing section in the IM
... these are semantically equivalent and you have to process
them in this way
... my concern is purely in terms about how to state that
... there should be a section defining Processing procedures
<Brian_Ulicny> No objection to example.
<renato>
[12]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2017Jan/
0005.html
[12]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2017Jan/0005.html
<Brian_Ulicny> No objection to proposal.
renato: the question could be "in this case, how does it work
with inheritance?"
... inheritance is something we support but we mean more
something like inclusion than the standard meaning of
inheritance
... e.g., in programming langauges
... the proposal is to copy in the child policy the properties
of the father
... then if the full expansion is preferred, then we go back to
the previous example
<Brian_Ulicny> Comment: q+
michaelS: did you check if you obtain the same result if you
expand first and then you inherit?
... it might be the same, but we need to check
renato: yes, we can look at that
Brian_Ulicny: the kind of inheritance is standard in OWL
renato: we will implement these changes in the editors draft
<renato> [13]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/48
[13] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/48
renato: issue to be discussed #48
... validity data expressed through constraints
<phila> +1 to not re-defining Dublin Core :-)
renato: my recommendation is to point to another ontology
defining them
... any views?
... a constraint is part of a rule, thus we need to apply
validity dates to all the rules in the policy
michaelS: it would be good to have a definition of what a time
range validity means?
renato: I mean temporal constraints on the policy
... it was based on the UC 4
<renato>
[14]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#POE.UC.04_Techni
cal_documents_rules_for_business_process_regulatory_compliance
[14]
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#POE.UC.04_Technical_documents_rules_for_business_process_regulatory_compliance
<phila> Serena: We had differnet versions. It was at the policy
level, to be able to say when there is a change
<phila> ... *this* policy has been overtaken by *this* policy
renato: we have the temporal constraints and we use other
ontologies like DC for the other information
phila: the policy is unbounded
renato: if there is no date, we assume there are no constraints
about that
... should we say something about policy identifiers?
<victor> which is the use case raising this?
UC4
<renato> #uc04
phila: we defer to the DC semantics, for versioning
renato: we will explicitly state that
<phila> The terms dcterms:replaces and dcterms:isReplacedBy are
both defined
phila: that should be part of the processing part
renato: good point
<renato> [15]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues
[15] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues
<renato> [16]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/63
[16] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/63
<phila> Serena: We discussed issue 63
<victor> about [17]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/63 i
provided several examples with minimal impact on the model, I
think
[17] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/63
renato: we need to find a way with minimum impact on the IM
victor: the change is minimum, only two operands
renato: what about duties?
victor: I forgot about that
renato: everything is in constraints in dities
... my proposal is not to do this because it just increase the
complexity of the model. Technically we can do it.
... in duties, we need to define left and right operands for
duties
... we thought there could be other ontologies doing that, but
it does not seem so
victor: I have to say that I'm not strongly supporting that,
it's syntactic sugar.
renato: we can note the WG that we are reconsidering this, we
need some strong cases to continue with this requirement
... the other issues are doable in the next week or two
... any other issue?
<renato> [18]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables
[18] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables
we move on the deliverables plan
Deliverables Plan
renato: by next Monday we have a first version of the editors
draft
... then call for reviews
<victor> I applied changes in the morning (merging the branch
issue84), that you can see in the vocabs page
[19]https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/
[19] https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/
renato: the deliverables wiki page, we then have to call for
one review (widest community possible)
... asking for feedback, comments, etc
... we need a collection of groups to contact
... at the moment we have few groups listed there
... do we need bigger groups?
phila: you just list the groups to contact, we created a
template email, and we reconded on the wiki when we sent this
email to
... making a structured effort should be enough
... we need to include horizontal reviews as well
<renato> [20]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables
[20] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables
ivan: one small remark, I agree that accessibility is not an
issue here, but we need to contact everyone
... in my experience, when it comes to reporting then Github is
your friend
... using a separate label for each group contacted, and ask
for issues there
... it is very easy at the end to report
renato: any other business?
<renato>
[21]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:London2017
[21] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:London2017
phila: EU project where they express CC licenses in ODRL
... CCRel they express CC licenses
renato: we did a profile together, but it was a while ago
<michaelS> [22]https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/cc/
[22] https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/cc/
renato: if want to purely express CC semantics they can use
CCRel and ODRL
victor: I support the idea of expressing CC licenses in ODRL
... each of the versions of licenses in Europe are
incompatible, and ODRL can fill the gap
renato: thanks everyone
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [23]last minutes meeting approved
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 16 January 2017 13:33:20 UTC