[Minutes] 2017 06 26

The minutes of today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.06.26 with a 
snapshot below.

Thanks to Victor for scribing. Sorry I have to leave you before the end 
and hope that the success of ODRL continues to grow.


   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

26 Jun 2017

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170626

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/06/26-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           renato, simonstey, ivan, michaelS, CarolineB, victor,
           Brian_Ulicny, phila

    Regrets
           Ben

    Chair
           Renato

    Scribe
           victor

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]approve the last meeting's minutes
          2. [6]test cases
          3. [7]Add "source" property to Collections Github Issue
          4. [8]Duty at Policy level GitHub Issue
      * [9]Summary of Action Items
      * [10]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <renato> 12:30 pm | Greenwich Time (Reykjavik, GMT) | 1 hr

    hi

    i can scribe if you like

    <scribe> Scribe: victor

    <renato> [11]https://www.w3.org/2017/06/19-poe-minutes

      [11] https://www.w3.org/2017/06/19-poe-minutes

    <michaelS> scribenick: victor

approve the last meeting's minutes

    <phila> (not present)

    RESOLUTION: last meeting's minutes are approved

    <benws> hmmm - problems calling in

test cases

    renato: I have explored the practices of other groups and their
    exit criteria
    ... the w3c mawg listed "features" which were implemented by
    implementors. they were the key selling idea.

    <renato>
    [12]https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/test/cr-exit.md

      [12] https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/test/cr-exit.md

    renato: we can create test cases for each of the features
    listed in the url above

    phila: I had an action item due, currently almost done trying
    to identify what an ODRL Evaluator had to do
    ... I made notes to the examples, the exit criteria would be to
    check whether the output of the evaluator is the one expected
    given one or more policies.
    ... the key is "what an evaluator must do"

    renato: constraints in any case are evaluated by black boxes.
    ... validation is first

    phila: i am trying to write down what happens one the black box
    has worked, "not how the black box works"

    <simonstey> +q

    simonstey: is the output yes/no or the policy containing the
    set of rules which are in effect?
    ... e.g. given a policy with 20 rules, shouldn't the policy
    evaluator say which is/are the rules which are in effect?

    <phila> victor: Is the ODRLE stateless?

    <simonstey> +q

    <phila> ... A god feature IMO is that it would be

    <phila> simonstey: You don't really have a choice of which
    rules you can take

    <phila> ... If the OE is evaluating a request against a policy,
    all the rules apply, you can't ignore some

    simonstey: for each request, there is as an output

    <phila> victor: Yes, I'm saying there should be only one
    request for the test cases

    victor: yes, in a system without memory, the test cases should
    only have at most "requests" but not "sequences of requests".

    simonstey: we cannot foresee how the odrl evaluator should be
    as long as the test cases are passed

    <simonstey> +q

    renato: it is quite likely that some implementations only
    consider validation, whereas "evaluation" will not be regarded.

    <benws> Sorry guys - I can't call in. V. odd.

    simonstey: the absolute minimum should abide to the IM in its
    section 2.7 onward.
    ... conflict resolution etc. has to be checked/tested
    ... propagation of constraints in the root level etc.

    <phila> +1 to simonstey

    <renato>
    [13]https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/test/cr-exit.md

      [13] https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/test/cr-exit.md

    simonstey: we need to check whether ODRL implementations do
    that, unless we use "MAY"s. etc. The absolute minium is "given
    a policy or set of set of policies, possibly with conflicts and
    conflict resolution information, reduce the set of rules to the
    result of applying the spec".

    renato: in the web above, you can see that a feature is "A
    Policy that includes Policy inhertiance".
    ... we can write test cases for each of the bullet points above

    victor: Phila, have you written anything?

    phila: hopefully today I'll distribute something

    renato: is there anything missing from the exit criteria list?
    ... is this ok?

    phila: yes

    subtopic: who are the potential implementations?

    renato: we should contact potential implementors out of the WG

    <renato>
    [14]https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/test/implementors.
    md

      [14] https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/test/implementors.md

    renato: we should try to fill the table provided in IRL link
    above
    ... Caroline could have feedback from three organizations (?)

    ivan: 3 implementations are in the low side

    renato: indeed

    +1

    <renato> Fraunhofer Gesellschaft

    victor: UPM will provide an implementation, as long as abiding
    to the test cases is not terribly complicated

    renato: possibly Fraunhofer will also.

    <renato> [15]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/164

      [15] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/164

    victor: UPM has staterd in a Pubby fork to serve linked data
    conditionally.

Add "source" property to Collections Github Issue

    renato: the MAWG has decided to use "source" to prevent id
    hijaacking
    ... so for the collections, "source" would be used, and not
    "uid"

    <simonstey> +q

    <michaelS> akc m

    <simonstey> [16]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/201

      [16] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/201

    michaelS: this has to be explained to the users of the
    information model. source is an alternative to id; but why/how?

    simonstey: by not using uid, blank nodes may live. Then,
    additional constraints identified by a certain URI might be
    concealed.

    renato: it is about creating another property which would be
    "source".

    ivan: not sure if the background of the problem is clear. in
    RDF, once a triple is out there in the web it is not confined,
    and anyone can see.
    ... so if someone makes a statement on a resource on the web
    ("ivan is blonde"), this is public, and this is what hijaacking
    is about.

    renato: does anybody oppose?

    (silence)

    <renato> [17]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/162

      [17] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/162

Duty at Policy level GitHub Issue

    renato: it is about a policy saying "pay me 5 dollars".
    ... which as of today, clashes with the current IM definition,
    which associates duties only at the permission level.

    <simonstey> +q

    renato: root-level-duties may prove useful for inheritance in
    an agreement.

    simonstey: i already commented in the github, there is an
    inconsistency now: we said that the IM specifies that a policy
    must have at least a rule (permission, prohibition, duty), but
    then we say that duty can only hang from a permission.
    ... if a duty is added to an offer/agreement then there must be
    one permission. otherwise, there cannot be a duty alone.

    michaels: this is related to shortcuts at the policy level.
    ... we have some already shortcuts

    victor: I want some clarifications in the shortcuts

    <renato> [18]https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#composition

      [18] https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#composition

    simonstey: the duty case is different from other shortcuts like
    "odrl:mypolicy odrl:permission odrl:play".
    ... in the first case, it can be specified otherwise, yes, but
    with too much effort

    victor: I saw and advantage in having a policy defined by a set
    of triples in the form "odrl:mypolicy odrl:PROPERTY
    odrl:VALUE".

    renato: we can see them not as "shortcuts" but as first class
    objects
    ... the duties are naturally "top level" in some cases.

    simonstey: there are some duties with an implicit permission.
    consider GDPR. One may say "if you want to handle with
    personaldata you have to do X"

    victor: if we have two manners of expressing something, we can
    define a CANONICALIZATION operation (much like in the XML world
    canonicalization is)

    michaelS: (explains a case victor does not grasp)

    renato: he means: we have non-conflicting permission A and
    prohibition B, and a duty at the policy level.
    ... what is the meaning of the duty once being satisfied?

    simonstey: you only pay for your right, but the prohibition
    also holds.

    renato: we need more discussion on this.

    RESOLUTION: to accept "source" for collections as an
    alternative identification mechanism

    renato: please join the github issues

    <simonstey> :(

    <michaelS> says thanks to phila

    ivan: will set up a new W3C call for the next weeks
    ... but i will be on vacation for 4 weeks
    ... ralph will fix the webex meetings'

    phila: this is perhaps my last call
    ... i will clean up the minutes for the last time.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [19]last meeting's minutes are approved
     2. [20]to accept "source" for collections as an alternative
        identification mechanism

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 13:59:07 UTC