Re: [Minutes] 2017 01 16

Well, I was present but I arrived 15 mins late.
Forgot to add myself to the presents' list.

Víctor

El 16/01/2017 a las 14:33, Phil Archer escribió:
> 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]
>      __________________________________________________________
>

-- 
Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 91336 3753
Skype: vroddon3

Received on Monday, 16 January 2017 13:36:12 UTC