- From: Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:00:17 +0200
- To: public-poe-wg@w3.org
Dear all, I see we cannot set a call with more than two participants. Shall we start speak speaking in a first call Simon and I and then in a second call with Ivan? Ivan when are you available? Víctor El 27/03/2017 a las 18:32, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel escribió: > Dear all, > > I have created a doodle poll to see when can we meet to discuss the > scope and ambition of the formal semantics note. Link: > https://beta.doodle.com/poll/ricy6h4iha3b5s4z > > I have set a fixed time (12.30 GMT) and several different days trying > to concile the different constraints you have emailed already. > > Regards, > Víctor > > > El 27/03/2017 a las 15:35, Phil Archer escribió: >> As ever, the minutes of today's meeting are at >> https://www.w3.org/2017/03/27-poe-minutes with a text snapshot below. >> Thanks Michael for scribing. >> >> Main topic today was Sabrina's new use case of modelling the GDPR >> using a profile of ODRL. >> >> >> Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference >> >> 27 March 2017 >> >> [2]Agenda [3]IRC log >> >> [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170327 >> [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/03/27-poe-irc >> >> Attendees >> >> Present >> benws, benws110, ivan, michaelS, phila, renato, Sabrina, >> Serena, smyles, victor >> >> Regrets >> Brian, Caroline, Simon >> >> Chair >> Ben >> >> Scribe >> michaelS >> >> Contents >> >> * [4]Meeting Minutes >> 1. [5]Last week's minutes >> 2. [6]New Use Case >> 3. [7]Deliverables >> 4. [8]best practices >> 5. [9]open Actions >> 6. [10]London F2F >> * [11]Summary of Action Items >> * [12]Summary of Resolutions >> >> Meeting Minutes >> >> <benws110> nick benws >> >> <victor> hi all >> >> <renato> hi victor >> >> scribe michaelS >> >> Last week's minutes >> >> benws: anybody want to raise an issue with last week's minutes >> >> <phila> [NOTUC] >> >> <phila> [13]Last week's minutes >> >> [13] https://www.w3.org/2017/03/20-poe-minutes.html >> >> Resolved: last week's minutes approved >> >> <renato> [14]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/ >> Use_Cases#POE.UC.37_Representing_regulations_using_ODRL >> >> [14] >> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#POE.UC.37_Representing_regulations_using_ODRL >> >> New Use Case >> >> Sabrina: introduced the Use Case >> … it models the EU General Data Protection Regulation >> … it needs to cover that at a generic level but also in details >> … Article 12 added as an example >> … this article shows the important use of references to other >> articles >> … the numbering of the articles has at least two levels >> >> benws: any comments on that so far? >> >> benws: does this requirement belong to a profile or to the >> general ODRL model? >> >> Sabrina: this is a decision by this group >> >> renato: what does "refer to another article" mean? >> >> Sabrina: that are dependencies - look at Article 12. This may >> transform to many duties. >> … to check if Article 12 is fullfilled the fulfillment of other >> articles is required >> >> phila: GDPR is very important it would be a big PR win if ODRL >> could show that it can cover it. >> … key question: is ODRL is a good tool for that purpose. >> Sabrina do you feel that? >> >> Sabrina: ODRL is not a bad fit. We need to specify obligations >> and constraints >> … There is work on taxonomies by other parties but less >> fitting. >> >> renato: we could promote this as a profile. This would serve to >> explain how to create a profile >> … and this profile could be shown to a wide audience. >> … the relationships between the constraints and duties is >> demandingö >> >> Sabrina: we have dependencies between the duties, we have >> constraints on duties, actions and parties >> … supported to create a profile for that. >> >> benws: to show that we could express regulations and licences >> by the same language would be fine >> >> phil >> >> phila: supported using ODRL for this purpose >> >> Sabrina: we are basically defining obligiations = duties = >> complying with the regulations >> … if we run into problems we will come back to this group >> … when it comes to constraints: there are discretational ones >> >> smyles: suggested to model optional constraints as permissions >> >> Sabrina: that's not exactly the intention of the GDPR >> … there are statements like a recommendation - and we don't >> want to omit them >> >> renato: is thinking what this could look like in code: >> leftOperand say you may or may not use an icon >> >> Sabrina: need for a discretional constraint: it would be good >> to meet this constraint but it doesn't stop the policy >> … if it is not met >> >> Sabrina: for her and Simon some constraints a bit fuzzy, needs >> deeper reviews >> >> smyles: we may add a concept of recommendation = if you can, >> you should do that >> … there could be levels of recommendation: strongly recommended >> ... and more >> >> Sabrina: will review this suggestion >> >> <renato> [15]https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119 >> >> [15] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119 >> >> <phila> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", >> "SHALL >> >> <phila> NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and >> >> <phila> "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as >> described in >> >> <phila> RFC 2119. >> >> phila: RFC2119 is a standard specifying things like that - >> could help >> >> Sabrina: Dispensation = something is required, but there is a >> dispensation under specific condiditions. >> … and some articles say "you are not allowed" others say >> "unless party X allows that" >> >> <victor> Dispensation: a : an exemption from a law or from an >> impediment, vow, or oath may be granted a dispensation from the >> rule b : a formal authorization requested a dispensation to >> form another lodge >> >> Sabrina: in fact: an exception on an exception >> … may also be used >> >> renato: went over some more details of transforming DGPR into >> ODRL >> >> victor: thinks like that can be expressed by ODRL. >> >> Sabrina: we are looking not only at GDPR but also legal >> regulations in general - is the existing ODRL data model work >> for us >> >> benws: what are "features" >> >> victor: we could think about synonyms for hardwired constraints >> >> Sabrina: two more things: "Feature" = article 12 has various >> obligations, some are well defined, some don't stand on their >> own. >> … we are looking at conjunctions and disjunctions in this >> context >> … transparency is the conjunction of all of them - we call them >> Features at the moment >> >> Sabrina: we need additional constraints on the asset - they >> will span across multiple duties >> >> renato: ODRL scope could work >> >> Sabrina: agreed >> … we have an issue with the type of processing - e.g. how >> personal data may be used for marketing >> >> smyles: the purpose is to define the nature of a party - right? >> >> Sabrina: yes, depending on who you are rules may apply >> >> smyles: why not to split up in constraints for group A and >> group B of persons >> >> smyles: wondered if inheritance could be used >> >> Sabrina: the controllers for different purposes are different >> … we look at what's there and then will come back to this group >> … the Wiki space could be used for discussions >> >> benws: timeline? >> >> Sabrina: there are different groups of work: e.g. transforming >> the article and the sub-points - but that's not very usable. >> … in a next step obligations have to be pulled out of the >> articles - and that's a big work, will take months. >> >> benws: does this timeline align with the ODRL timeline? >> >> Sabrina: yes. >> >> renato: do we need a new policy type "regulation"? >> >> Sabrina: yes >> >> benws: supported to use Wikipages for working on the >> transformation >> >> Deliverables >> >> <renato> [16]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables >> >> [16] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables >> >> renato: went over [17]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/ >> Deliverables >> >> [17] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables >> >> <renato> [18]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ >> public-poe-comments/2017Mar/0012.html >> >> [18] >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-comments/2017Mar/0012.html >> >> renato: we got a reply from EDRLabs >> >> <renato> [19]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/118 >> >> [19] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/118 >> >> renato: raised some concerns regarding periods >> … this needs an update of the definitions of date/time and >> period constraints >> >> renato: re Horizontal reviews: >> … any news from Brian? >> >> benws: has sent a reminder >> >> renato: reviews seem to be on track >> >> benws: refered to a proposoal of Victor to hold a special >> meeting >> … = a call >> >> benws: asked Victor to launch a Doodgle survey for finding date >> and time >> >> best practices >> >> benws: tried to reach out to James from Catapult, but the email >> did not work >> >> open Actions >> >> benws: only 3 on the issue tracker >> >> <phila> s/RESOLVED: last week's minutes approved// >> >> <renato> [20]https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/114 >> >> [20] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/114 >> >> London F2F >> >> benws: open issue is providing hotel rooms at TR rates - but >> Sabrina may have an alternative >> >> victor: would appreciate to have times for the agenda items >> >> bens: starting time 10am - ok? >> >> renato: agenda will be based on requests from group members and >> currently ongoing work >> >> <ivan> will there be possibiltiies for dial in? >> >> benws: suggested 5:30pm as closing time >> >> <ivan> thanks >> >> benws: it will be possible to dial in too >> >> benws: AOB? >> >> benws: none was raised - bye >> >> Summary of Action Items >> >> Summary of Resolutions >> >> 1. [21]last week's minutes approved >> > > -- 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 Friday, 31 March 2017 06:59:59 UTC