- 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>
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
Attendees
Present
victor, renato, sabrina, benws, michaelS, phila
Regrets
Chair
Ben
Scribe
phila
Contents
* [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.
<renato>
[10]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161003
[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
up?
... 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
<renato>
[14]https://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html#ResolutionSu
mmary
[14] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary
->
[15]https://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html#ResolutionSu
mmary Resolution summary
[15] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary
<renato>
[16]https://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes.html#ResolutionSu
mmary
[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
resolutions
<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?
[None]
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
back.
... Any objections?
PROPOSED: Update the UCR according to the minutes. Highlight
any gaps in those minutes and bring matters arising to future
telco
<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
rejected?
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
+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
originals
<ivan> +1 to Ben
benws2: I don't really want to hold us up for another couple of
months?
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
respond.
Data Quality policy Use case
<renato>
[17]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#POE.UC.26_Data_Q
uality_Policy
[17]
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#POE.UC.26_Data_Quality_Policy
<michaelS>
[18]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#POE.UC.26_Data_Q
uality_Policy
[18]
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#POE.UC.26_Data_Quality_Policy
<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
things
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
([20]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_
Bibliographic_Records) would ease Ben's case. Once these
entities are connected (dataset, distribution), logical
relations can be established in a simple manner.
[20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records)
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
graphs"
... 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]
[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]
[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
2016-10-10].
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
do.
... 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
action-17?
<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]
[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
action-30?
<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
way.
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
Issues
[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
ones.
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
[30]http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: renato to write to Antoine asking for example
that ODRL can't handle [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: simon to update UCR according to today's
discussion [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes.html#action03]
[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