[Minutes] 2017 01 30

The minutes of today's meeting are at
https://www.w3.org/2017/01/30-poe-minutes

Thanks to Caroline for scribing.

Snapshot below:


   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

30 Jan 2017

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170130

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/01/30-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           renato, simonstey, phila, michaelS, CarolineB, Sabrina,
           benws2, smyles, Brian_Ulicny, victor.

    Regrets
           serena

    Chair
           renato

    Scribe
           CarolineB

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Preliminaries
          2. [6]deliverables
      * [7]Summary of Action Items
      * [8]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

Preliminaries

    <michaelS> scribe: CarolineB

    <michaelS> scribenick: CarolineB

    <renato> [9]https://www.w3.org/2017/01/16-poe-minutes.html

       [9] https://www.w3.org/2017/01/16-poe-minutes.html

    <phila> [NOTUC]

    minutes approved

    <phila> (No objection to unanimous consensus)

deliverables

    <renato> [10]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues

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

    renato: from issues list, got thorugh many last week, couple
    waiting for comment.
    ... semantic details being discussed
    ... json ld section needs work

    <simonstey> +q

    benws2: complex constraints. Simon and Michael were going to
    give examples to show pitfalls

    <renato> isNecessaryFor - the left operand Constraints must be
    satisfied before processing the left operand Constraint which
    then must be satisfied

    simonstey: main problem is that isNecessary means that temporal
    dependencies can be imposed between constraints

    <simonstey> c1 isNecessaryFor c2, c2 isNF c3, c3 isNF c1

    simonstey: adn this leads to deadlock - as example above

    <simonstey> c1 isNF c2, c3 isNF c2, c1 xor c3

    <simonstey> c4 isNF c1 -> c4 not resolveable

    <michaelS> q

    simonstey: I think we should avoid combining constraints so
    that we avoid huge chains
    ... lets simply say before or after date/times

    michaelS: we need to think of worst cases. So if checking takes
    too long we could set a timeout period for checking
    ... or a default value for what happens if you get a timeout

    renato: Remove all extended constraint stuff?

    simonstey: just leave and or xor etc. remove IsNecessary
    concept for now
    ... we need to leave constraint on constraint, not remove it
    ... just still need to think about the requirement. Temporal
    constraint is too difficult

    benws2: we d need to be able to check amount and unit
    ... so we need to keep case where there is more than one
    predicate. Is it simply temporal that is problematic?
    ... are there complex constraints we can retain?

    renato: haven't yet found a solution to cover all cases despite
    talking a lot
    ... but if we don't have it at all in the draft we are saying
    we can't handle constraint on constraint at all

    <benws2> +1 to expression

    simonstey: if we keep it, I want to go over edge cases and
    explain the problems
    ... we must avoid must be satisfied *before* processing. to
    avoid deadlocks

    michaelS: so should we include sequence for processing?

    renato: is necessary for gives us that sequence

    brian_ulicny: owl and sparql use if then - can we do the same
    and only evaluate all constraints when they are all
    satisfiable?
    ... exampe of event + 30 inutes relies on representing the
    extra 30 mins

    simonstey: All Time a possible solution?

    <simonstey> owl

    owl time that is

    <simonstey> [11]https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/

      [11] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/

    simonstey: you can't always check everything of ocurse

    <phila> phila: if it matters, OWL time gets an update on
    Thursday [12]https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-owl-time-20170202/

      [12] https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-owl-time-20170202/

    <benws2> :)

    renato: we will need to revisit this section and add more
    narrative to IsNecessaryFor (isNF)

    simonstey: some editorial things need fixing.
    ... current information model still contains legacy sections
    (from xml) that are confusing; e.g. 3.4
    ... adn some parts too implementation specific; e.g. inherit
    condition
    ... please would everyone go over, check these things and
    suggest changes w eneed

    benws2: there is some ambiguity around prohibitions and
    permissions

    simonstey: shouldn't have a policy with only prohibitions

    benws2: is a prohibition at same level as permission or should
    it only qualify a permission?

    renato: originally anything permitted must be in the expression
    all else assumed ot be prohibited
    ... yes, we should probably revisit for clarity

    michaelS: the starting point of nothing is permitted came from
    discussion with lawyers. It's a legal pov

    simonstey: suggests this could be too restrictive for ODRL

    <smyles> [13]http://dev.iptc.org/RIghtsML-Processing-Model

      [13] http://dev.iptc.org/RIghtsML-Processing-Model

    smyles: rightsML processing model is defined 1. first look at
    whats permitted then look at ODRL.
    ... reason we defined it that way since news is handled that
    way now ex ODRL

    renato: we are reviewing the prohiition section

    <simonstey> +q

    renato: q-
    ... we need to create a JsonLD context

    <michaelS> regret not joining next call

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 30 January 2017 13:36:27 UTC