[Minutes] 2017 06 12

The minutes of today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2017/06/12-poe-minutes with a text snapshot below.

Thanks for Caroline for scribing.


   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

12 June 2017

    [2]Agenda [3]IRC log

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon201706012
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/06/12-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           benws, Brian_Ulicny, CarolineB, ivan, michaelS, phila,
           renato, sabrina, simonstey

    Regrets
           Victor

    Chair
           Renato

    Scribe
           CarolineB

Contents

      * [4]Meeting Minutes
          1. [5]Approve minutes
          2. [6]alsoRequires for Asset/Party
          3. [7]mandatory uid
          4. [8]Test Cases
          5. [9]Deadline setting
          6. [10]AOB?
      * [11]Summary of Action Items
      * [12]Summary of Resolutions

Meeting Minutes

Approve minutes

    <renato> [13]https://www.w3.org/2017/06/05-poe-minutes

      [13] https://www.w3.org/2017/06/05-poe-minutes

    <renato> [14]https://www.w3.org/2017/05/29-poe-minutes

      [14] https://www.w3.org/2017/05/29-poe-minutes

    renato: these are minutes from the week before and last week's
    chat

    renato: approved

    Resolved: Minutes of 29 May meeting approved

alsoRequires for Asset/Party

    sabrina: alsoRequires tried to come up with an example
    (horzontal) but don't see the need jus tnow

    renato: so we can let it go for now

    <renato> [15]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/174

      [15] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/174

mandatory uid

    simon: mandatory uid - we don't allow blank nodes for assets
    and parties. Why are we limiting ourselves?

    simon: if we allow a blank node we can use other properties;
    e.g. foaf:name
    … so we coudl change "must" to "should" perhaps?

    renato: party and asset are outside the policy, so we believed
    that they must be identified by id

    <renato> [16]http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#function

      [16] http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#function

    renato: so we recommended a uid + whatever other properties

    ivan: agrees it should be a "should". There are cases where you
    can rely on external tools (owl or rule languages that will
    deduce correctly). The extra uid will be superfluous

    benws: were we using blank nodes when we put constraints on
    assets and parties?
    … we coudl say must be identified by eother a uid or a blank
    node

    simonstey: its different to say we must have an assigner or an
    assignee. Thats different to saying we must have a uid
    … its all expressed in triples. a blank node is different ot a
    null value

    michaelS: uses the example of a webpage. It has an identifier,
    but the person on the web page has only a name and maybe
    contact details

    <ivan> +1 to michaelS

    simonstey: Even if you have a uid you can't always uniquely
    identify someone

    renato: you can declare 2 uids sameAs

    ivan: if you can have many identifiers then its not a "must".
    You can use those and not create a new uid

    benws: Theres a distinction between uniquely identifies and
    identifies uniquely
    … the second suggest sit is the only id to use

    <ivan> +1 to benws

    benws: we need things identified properly but we don't have to
    insist how it is done
    … people must give a party or asset an id which uniquely
    identifies the thing

    benws: but it can be a uid or some other property

    renato: so if we change to "should", we need to add that the
    thing still needs to be uniquely identifiable

    simonstey: we should use "should" and recommend strongly that
    people ought to uniquely identify assets or parties

    <phila> PROPOSED: That for asset and party, we change the MUST
    for uids from MUST to SHOULD, adding a narrative that if you
    don't use UIDs, then the system needs its own method of
    identifying the asset or party

    Proposal: cFor asset and party we change "must" for uid to
    "should" and add narrative to say that its recommended to find
    a way to uniquely identify

    <phila> s+//PROPOSED: That for asset and party, we change the
    MUST for uids from MUST to SHOULD, adding a narrative that if
    you don't use UIDs, then the system needs its own method of
    identifying the asset or party

    <simonstey> +1

    <Sabrina> +1

    <phila> +1

    <michaelS> +1

    +1

    <Brian_Ulicny> +1

    <renato> +0.9

    <phila> (I think Ivan was clearly a +1)

    Resolved: That for asset and party, we change the MUST for uids
    from MUST to SHOULD, adding a narrative that if you don't use
    UIDs, then the system needs its own method of identifying the
    asset or party

Test Cases

    <renato> -1

    <simonstey> -1

    <michaelS> bad news

    <benws> that would/will be a great loss

    phila: has been offered another job and is leaving in three
    weeks!!!
    … ivan is a strong possibility to take over

    <simonstey> [17]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/
    Policy_Inference

      [17] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Policy_Inference

    simonstey: On the Wiki, I've highlighted the what I think the
    semantics should be
    … it will become part of the formal sematics doc (in a more
    formal way)

    phila: I wanted a black box to have a limited function. But
    group wanted an evaluator to tell you if a constraint is in
    effect

    simonstey: see the outcome of an ODRL evaluator to be to tell
    you if all rules are in effect
    … need to be really careful about what is overriden when there
    is a conflict

    renato: so, do we need a test case?

    simonstey: e.g. a policy with permission to present part a with
    a prohibition to stop Bob from printing part b
    … and further W3C prohibition. So outcome could be the rules
    which are in effect (e.g. if you are Susan)

    renato: We have a raw policy, do we expect the evaluator to
    return a list of rules in effect

    simonstey: it would be the expanded policy

    phila: then the evaluator needs to know a lot. How do we define
    how it communicates with the black boxes?

    <simonstey> [18]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/
    Policy_Inference#odrl:memberOf

      [18] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Policy_Inference#odrl:memberOf

    phila: you would need to know the individual, if they are a
    member of staff at Thomson Reuters. What is the boundary of the
    evaluator?

    simonstey: we ask a black box about a duty and we ask a black
    box about a constraint

    benws: clarification - becasue we have extended relations, the
    evaluator would need to be aware

    simonstey: yes

    renato: woudl phil and simon work onthe test cases before Phil
    disappears :(

    simonstey: that will be hard

    phila: I can write freestanding text to set out what an
    evaluator does

    Action: phila to draft text defining an ODRL Evaluator

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Draft text defining an odrl
    evaluator [on Phil Archer - due 2017-06-19].

    <renato> [19]https://github.com/w3c/poe/projects/1

      [19] https://github.com/w3c/poe/projects/1

Deadline setting

    renato: want ot set a deadline

    simonstey: I think it's not only up to the reviewers to raise
    issues. we can all do that, read through the docs and raise
    issues etc.
    … I think there may be more from me

    simonstey: I encourage everyone to at least create a GH account
    and the raise issues

    benws: Where there are sub editing issues, what's the best way
    of pushing them forward?

    renato: Go ahead and do it

    renato: It can be more effort to write the issue than to
    actually make the correction

    michaelS: Who will do the make action?>

    renato: The vocab - you need Raptor installed to do that.
    … If you edit the turtle file - that's the master - you don't
    touch anything but the turtle file

    renato: If I see a change, I can do a make

    <benws> I too have to leave

    <benws> Congratulations to Phil - but will miss your influence
    and help

    [General discussion about review timing, deadlines etc.]

AOB?

    [None]

Summary of Action Items

     1. [20]phila to draft text defining an ODRL Evaluator

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [21]Minutes of 29 May meeting approved
     2. [22]That for asset and party, we change the MUST for uids
        from MUST to SHOULD, adding a narrative that if you don't
        use UIDs, then the system needs its own method of
        identifying the asset or party

Received on Monday, 12 June 2017 13:41:01 UTC