- From: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:27:14 +0200
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
Hi! > Go ahead without me. I will not be available until the 11th, and there > is no reason to wait for me. I can always comment on the outcome using > the usual channels… I think it makes more sense to just postpone the call such that all of us can participate. After the 11th, when are you available again Ivan? br simon Am 2017-03-31 10:07, schrieb Ivan Herman: >> On 31 Mar 2017, at 09:00, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel >> <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es> wrote: >> >> 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? >> > > Go ahead without me. I will not be available until the 11th, and there > is no reason to wait for me. I can always comment on the outcome using > the usual channels… > > Ivan > > >> 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 >> >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Publishing@W3C Technical Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 --- DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys
Received on Friday, 31 March 2017 09:27:49 UTC