W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > October 2016

[Minutes] 2016-10-03 and more

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:31:26 +0100
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d8cc09cd-227d-e2c9-9d50-e3be6ced83e6@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes with a text snapshot below.

I have also:
- cleaned up the minutes from TPAC;
- added more detail to the resolutions taken there;
- added necessary code in the TPAC agenda so that a link appears in the 
regular meetings table to the minutes of the first day. I can't add 
links to both days so I've added a prominent link from the top of day 
1's minutes to day 2's and vice versa.

   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

03 Oct 2016

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-irc


           victor, renato, sabrina, benws, michaelS, phila




      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Approving TPAC minutes
          2. [5]Use Cases
          3. [6]Data Quality policy Use case
          4. [7]Educational Use Only use case
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      * [9]Summary of Resolutions

    <victor> Hi!

    <benws2> Can someone please give me the webex link.


      [10] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161003

    <scribe> scribe: phila

    <scribe> scribeNick: phila

    <renato> Chair: Ben

Approving TPAC minutes

    They're linked from the agenda

    -> [11]https://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html Minutes
    22 Sept

      [11] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html

    <renato> [12]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings

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

    -> [13]https://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes.html Minutes
    23 Sept

      [13] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes.html

    <benws2> No

    phila: Will try and make minutes appear in main list

    benws2: Any objections to the minutes?

    renato: I'd like to go through them here if we can

    <simonstey> +q

    renato: I just thought we'd go through the topics...

    benws2: Might others go through it offline and bring any issues
    ... I don't want to spend the whole of this call going over
    stuff we've done already [scribe paraphrase]

    simonstey: An admin comment - I pointed out last week that if
    you look at the summary of the resolutions, for example
    resolutions 5-8 which are just 'not accepted'. The minutes
    don't necessarily tell you what was resolved
    ... There's a resolution called POE.R.V.03 ACCEPTED is clearer


      [14] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary

    mmary Resolution summary

      [15] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary


      [16] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary

    benws2: I see. Who would do that work?

    phila: Who was scribing?
    ... It will have to be me but future scribes please take note.

    benws2: So we can run through the summary of resolutions which
    isn't all that long.

    renato: We had 17 topic areas on day 1 and we only have 10

    <simonstey> +q

    benws2: OK, I do think people should go through it offline
    rather than take up time here.
    ... And almost everyone on this call was there.
    ... So when can we approve the minutes, renato?
    ... It's an approval that the minutes are a fair reflection
    ... and don't contain any misrepresentations
    ... So unless I hear an objection?


    simonstey: A minor comment - if we encounter... the question
    is, if we have made resolutions, but if they're not scribed
    fully, do we have to re-do that in another call?
    ... Renato said that we have a large number of topics discussed
    at TPAC, b ut we only have 10 officially noted in the minutes,
    so if the resolutions aren't recorded in the minutes, do we
    need to go back and re-do those?

    benws2: I think we care. I suggest we update the reqs doc with
    the resolutions from TPAC. Where we find gaps, see if there is
    an implicit resolution in the minutes, then maybe we need to go
    ... Any objections?

    PROPOSED: Update the UCR according to the minutes. Highlight
    any gaps in those minutes and bring matters arising to future

    <simonstey> +1

    renato: The UCR has no reqs in it at the moment. Are we putting
    all the Reqs in the UCR and then note the ones that were

    simonstey: At this stage, I'd note it in the wiki. And only put
    the agreed ones in the GH version

    benws2: I agree. Reflect it in the wiki, not the doc itself

    +1 from me on that

    PROPOSED: Update the UCR wiki according to the minutes.
    Highlight any gaps in those minutes and bring matters arising
    to future telco

    <simonstey> +1

    <Brian_Ulicny> +1

    <benws2> +1

    <victor> +1

    <michaelS> +1

    <ivan> +1


    <sabrina> +1

    <smyles> +0

    RESOLUTION: Update the UCR wiki according to the minutes.
    Highlight any gaps in those minutes and bring matters arising
    to future telco
    ... Minutes of TPAC face to face meeting accepted

Use Cases

    benws2: We got two new UCs from the book industry at TPAC
    ... They should be added. Who gets that job?

    renato: I had the impression that those UCs were being drafted
    and we're going to get a new version soon.

    benws2: How long do we have? It took a while to get their

    <ivan> +1 to Ben

    benws2: I don't really want to hold us up for another couple of

    renato: We can give them a deadline as well as discuss overall
    deadline for UCs?

    benws2: You're point person with that group

    renato: I can send them an e-mail and give them a week to

Data Quality policy Use case





    <victor> [19]http://pro.europeana.eu/person/antoine-isaac

      [19] http://pro.europeana.eu/person/antoine-isaac

    phila: Gives pocket background to Antoine

    benws2: It looks to me as if he has given an accurate
    reflection of his use case using the existing ODRL spec

    <simonstey> +q

    renato: I cane to that conclusion. In his Duty, there's no
    action. I think he missed that the assignee up time {... ??}
    ... In ODRL 1.1 we had a group doing a profile for services,
    looking at things like uptime

    benws2: There's another issue here that we're deadling with.
    It's the diff between a dcat:Dataset and a Distribution.
    ... He's targeting the permission at the Dataset and the duty
    at the Distribution

    phila: Rambles about the diff between dataset and distribution
    ... So ODRL has a problem with target and duty being different

    renato: What he has is fine from an ODRL POV
    ... Duties can be obligations on other resources, not
    necessarily the original target of the policy.

    [Discussion on detail of assignees, policies]

    benws2: So it looks as if existing ODRL can do it.
    ... Should we go back to Antoine?

    <victor> A qualification of assets with FRBR
    Bibliographic_Records) would ease Ben's case. Once these
    entities are connected (dataset, distribution), logical
    relations can be established in a simple manner.


    simonstey: Just reading the policy, I was wondering whether a
    duty must have an action?

    benws2: Yes.

    simonstey: It looks as if there is an action missing.
    ... He says "The expression of constraints in ODRL seems quite
    unfit with expressing general constraints on values in RDF
    ... I would argue that this is not the goal of ODRL, that's
    what SHACL is for

    <renato> ODRL ne SHACL ;-)

    simonstey: So in this case, ODRL can be used, but I'm sure
    there are situations where this constraint mechanism of ODRL is
    not expressivbe enough to handle all use cases
    ... Maybe we need to incorporate a means to refer to a SHACL
    shape from ODRL.

    benws2: Between us, can we get an example of a UC from Anotine
    that can't be so easily satisfied, where the use of SHACL would
    satisfy it.

    smyles: I wonder if Antoine's comment... is he saying there'
    nothing in the ODRL policy that tells you the relationship
    between the dataset and the distribution
    ... So I wonder if we need a means to express the relationship.
    And only AI can answer that.
    ... I'd like to caution - not everyone uses or wants to use
    RDF. Let's not require RDF, adding in lots of RDF processing

    ivan: I would be careful with bringing SHACL here. I tried to
    re-read Antoine's work. I think he uses the word constraint
    differently from ODRL.
    ... He has difficulties in attaching rights expression-like
    things to an RDF graph.

    <simonstey> The mission of the RDF Data Shapes Working Group is
    to produce a language for defining structural constraints on
    RDF graphs. In the same way that SPARQL made it possible to
    query RDF data, the product of the RDF Data Shapes WG will
    enable the definition of graph topologies for interface
    specification, code development, and data verification.

    <simonstey> [21]https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/charter

      [21] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/charter

    benws2: That would seem to advise that we ask for a use case
    that is not so readily satisfied by ODRL

    phila: I am happy with pointing to 'a validation mechanism' but
    I would caution against specifying SHACL. Too RDF-centric and
    creates dependency we can avoid

    benws2: Discusses who will write to Antoine

    <scribe> ACTION: phila to write to Antoine as heads up for
    Renato's mail [recorded in

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Write to antoine as heads up for
    renato's mail [on Phil Archer - due 2016-10-10].

    <scribe> ACTION: renato to write to Antoine asking for example
    that ODRL can't handle [recorded in

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Write to antoine asking for
    example that odrl can't handle [on Renato Iannella - due

Educational Use Only use case

    [Scribe missed some discussion]

    benws2: Meaning of 'Educational use' varies according to
    country but the concept exists everywhere
    ... So do we try and define it?
    ... We have terms like read and derive, but 'Educational Use
    Only' seems to be embedded in local jurisdictional meaning.
    Should we support those?

    renato: If there's no support for it, we don't do it.

    phila: Does this speak to the enumerated list we talked about
    in Lisbon?

    <renato> [24]https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-policyUsage

      [24] https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-policyUsage

    renato: It's a value for an actiuon.

    benws2: So it sounds as if we need a more popular appeal for
    'Educational Use Only' if it's to go into the vocab.

    smyles: When we were working on ODRL we identified Educational
    Use as a need to indicate for some of the rights work that we
    ... We might say of a video, not for these purposes, but Ed Use
    is OK.

    benws2: So you have a specific meaning of Educational Use?

    smyles: Nope. It;'s just written that way.

    <victor> s/thatn/than

    smyles: We often have restrictions for ... this sporting video
    can be used in a news programme but not a sports programme.
    ... That sounds similar to Ed Use
    ... You're not allowed to use this for parody.

    benws2: We have similar things/.
    ... But I wouldn't expect ODRL to manage and define.
    ... This is domain specific.

    smyles: So ODRL currently has a mechanism (purpose) but it
    doesn't provide the values.

    benws2: That's my intuition.

    Topics: Issues and Actions


    <trackbot> action-17 -- Simon Steyskal to Update ucr editor's
    draft as discussed -- due 2016-07-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [25]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/17

      [25] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/17

    simonstey: That's an old action.
    ... This was for our first PWD

    close action-17

    <trackbot> Closed action-17.

    <scribe> ACTION: simon to update UCR according to today's
    discussion [recorded in

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-34 - Update ucr according to today's
    discussion [on Simon Steyskal - due 2016-10-10].

    renato: One of these actions came from TPAC


    <trackbot> action-30 -- Stuart Myles to Can we only have a
    json-ld serialisation? will it impact righstml? -- due
    2016-09-30 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [27]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/30

      [27] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/30

    renato: That's on Stuart who wasn't there
    ... The question is, if we had JSON-LD only, would that impact
    on Rights ML (i.e. no JSON-only)

    smyles: I'll come back to the WG on that.
    ... If we have that and eliminate 'pure JSON' do we also
    eliminate pure XML?

    ivan: I would say you shouldn't become an expert... I can show
    you a spec that uses JSON-LD but you can read it as a JSON-only

    <ivan> [28]https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/

      [28] https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/

    ivan: I think... it does refer to JSON-LD in the intro...
    ... All the examples there are all JSON. It's just the @context
    file that makes it JSON-LD which you can safely forget.
    ... My ideal would be that ODRL can be expressed in a similar

    smyles: This is a spec I wanted to look at anyway :-)

    simonstey: I see it as anyone can raise an issue, but the WG
    can decide not to open it or not.

    -> [29]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/raised Raised

      [29] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/raised

    renato: Issue 7 and 9 are now merged.
    ... We're only going to include requirements in the UCR that
    we're going to fulfil/address. The wiki will retain rejected

    close issue-8

    <trackbot> Closed issue-8.

    [Discussion on possible future changes to call timing.]

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: phila to write to Antoine as heads up for
    Renato's mail [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: renato to write to Antoine asking for example
    that ODRL can't handle [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: simon to update UCR according to today's
    discussion [recorded in

      [30] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes.html#action01
      [31] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes.html#action02
      [32] http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes.html#action03

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [33]Update the UCR wiki according to the minutes. Highlight
        any gaps in those minutes and bring matters arising to
        future telco

    [End of minutes]
Received on Monday, 3 October 2016 13:31:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:26 UTC