[Minutes] 2017-06-05

With many European countries on holiday today, there were insufficient 
people for a full meeting. Nevertheless, a couple of general discussions 
were held as recorded at https://www.w3.org/2017/06/05-poe-minutes and 
textified below.


   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

05 June 2017

    [2]Agenda [3]IRC log

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170605
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/06/05-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           CarolineB, ivan, phila, renato, victor

    Regrets
           Michael, Much_of_Europe, Sabrina, Serena

    Chair
           Ben

    Scribe
           phila

Contents

      * [4]Meeting Minutes

Meeting Minutes

    <renato> Is all of Europe on holidays?

    <ivan> well, most of it

    <ivan> but... the meeting is marked to be cancelled?

    <renato> I am ok to cancel it

    [General discussion about whether there are sufficient people
    for a meaningful meeting]

    benws11111: Not enough people IMO
    … Can we clarify some dates - when are we next looking to
    publish

    renato: The next milestone is to go to CR

    renato: Got to get things lined up for that

    renato: In theory, it was going to be at the F2F but we weren't
    close to resolving the outstanding issues.
    … No new target set as yet
    … My my POV, I can see maybe another couple of weeks for the 2
    deliverables, then the test cases

    ivan: We have a plan for how to do the test cases?
    … If we have a plan and say they'll be complete shortly.
    … Going to CR doesn't need all the test cases to be in place

    <CarolineB> *me sorry to be late

    benws11111: When we go to Rec, we're going with 2 documents?

    [Yes]

    benws11111: benws11111 What will be the status of the Vocab?

    ivan: Recommendation

    benws11111: It's going to be quite small though isn't it?

    renato: Not too small.

    benws11111: So if they go into the Rec process, does that mean
    the UCR needs to be in its final form

    ivan: There's no process requirement on the UCR

    ivan: It's usually closed at the end of the process. Might want
    to make some final bits to the UCR to point to where Recs are
    met

    phila: Outlines different assumptions about what an ODRL
    Evaluator returns and therefore what inputs it needs

    benws11111: It makes sense that an agreement or offer is in
    effect, not sure what a Set being in effect means

    <victor> different blackboxes will need different
    inputs/outputs.

    Yes, I am defining an API, ivan

    <renato> [5]http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#constraint-party

       [5] http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#constraint-party

    [Discussion about what a black box and an evaluator needs to
    know]

    <benws11111> +1

    ivan: We don't need to standardise the behaviour of the black
    boxes
    … Each implementation has to answer the questions Phil is
    asking, but they can do it as they wish

    benws11111: The policy evaluator is, given these inputs from
    the black boxes, is this policy in play or not

    renato: Do you mean policy or Rule

    benws11111: Rule

    renato: If there were a Rule with 6 constraints, do we say give
    me a true or false for all of them?

    benws11111: Describes a black box per constraint. Get back all
    the answwers

    <victor> You can play this on Tuesday. BLACKBOX1: "I need the
    current time". BLACKBOX2: "I need the current time and the
    party's location, to determine whether in his/her location we
    are already on Tuesday". Specific implementations need
    different params, but cannot standardize that --> black boxes
    should be very black

    renato: All need to know that all constraints are satisfied for
    the Rule to be in force

    benws11111: We'd need a different charter to handle the kind of
    processing Phil's talking about

    ivan: We're defining a vocabulary, no more

    ivan: We'd need a market for black boxes.

    [AOB]

    benws11111: Not asking for accepting minutes etc. as not
    quorate this week. Will pick up next week.

    ivan: How close are really to a CR?

    ivan: I'm a little worried that the F2F had to discuss pretty
    heavy technical issues that are still not closed.
    … I saw the Renato/Michael discussion this morning

    benws11111: We did make those tech decisions, I think.

    ivan: The SKOS/Not SKOS discussion is about whether we have
    additional semantics on those terms.
    … If so, then those semantics need to be properly defined and
    put in the doc.

    benws11111: I would say the semantics are up to the formal
    semantics editors

    ivan: But the semantics have to be reflected in the Rec Track
    doc. The Semantics doc isn't Rec Track.
    … Something has to go into the model and vocab that is binding.

    renato: The 1st attempt to define narrowerThan and implies
    didn't work but that's always the way. We need to clarify that
    these are not SKOS-like
    … Then in for FS doc, we provide the maths

    renato: I think we just go through the usual collaborative
    process. Say that we're not going to use SKOS for those. We can
    still use it for concepts

    ivan: But what does it bring that SKOS doesn't have?
    … Not sure what it brings to have it.

    ivan: If people are happy, I'll be quiet.

    renato: Did the Annotations WG use SKOS?

    ivan: No.
    … I think we had a brief discussion, but when SKOS came around,
    this kind of confusion about the role of SKOS came up.

    benws11111: I can fall into that confusion easily.
    … It loses relevance as you move on to ontologies
    … There's value where you want a term to come from a controlled
    vocab but that's not what we're doing with these 2 new
    properties.

    ivan: I wonder whether, every appearance of SKOS, in the
    current version, is right.

    benws11111: Not to control hierarchy, but for a taxonomy.

    ivan: I hope I'm right that the use of SKOS isn't part of the
    model or vocab?

    renato: Intentionally there for a reason?

    ivan: Is it part of the spec or is it only in the ontology?

    renato: It doesn't appear in the human-readable doc

    ivan: I'm guessing that the use of SKOS is not part of the
    normative part of our Rec Track docs

    renato: True

    ivan: So if in CR, someone take the time to look at and clean
    up the ontology, then it can be done without breaking CR.

    <victor> can that be rephrased again?

    ivan: Whether we have the time and will is another matter.

    ivan: I could say that the ontology for the normative vocab,
    should not contain any term which is not specified by the
    standard.

    ivan: We have an ontology. That's not the Rec.
    … Any RDF statement in that ontology that is extra, it's an
    extra that no one in the WG voted on

    renato: we can put SKOS axioms in the ontology, but they don't
    really change things

    benws11111: we should reflect the Rec in the ontology

    ivan: Yes.

    victor: We have info in the ontology that isn't in the Rec

    ivan: The ontology is clearly specified...

    [Victor shows diagram with Venn diagram of English language
    Spec and OWL file]

    victor: I wonder whether other ontologies have been specified
    like this

    phila: Talks about DCAT. The Rec mandates the use of DC Terms
    in various places, the namespace file doesn't mention any term
    other than dcat: terms

    benws11111: we'll have to discuss it in ore detail when we're
    quorate.

    [Informal resolution]

    The ontology (namespace file) should only include terms defined
    in the Rec Track document

    ivan: We talked about the core/common vocab.
    … New terms may be in non-normative parts of the Rec Track doc,
    they can be included. But there shouldn't be terms that are not
    mentioned anywhere in the Rec

    renato: We've already removed the SKOS terms
    … We used to use things like skos:definition, skos:scopeNote
    etc.

    ivan: RDF has label and comment

    phila: I would use dcterms:description if rdfs:comment is
    insufficient

    renato: We took out all the skos:broaderTerm stuff

    ivan: But Michael isn't happy?

    renato: He wants to use SKOS for broader/narrower
    … We need to articulate the difference
    … I think we should change the name from narrowerThan to ??

    phila: ?? suggests 'refines/refinementOf'

    benws11111: How about 'assumes'

    ivan: Let's wait fort Simon

    renato: That would help to explain why we have our own terms

    ivan: So we used our time wisely after all?

    benws11111: Not bad for an informal chat.

Received on Monday, 5 June 2017 13:29:50 UTC