IRC log of poe on 2016-10-17
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 12:09:04 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #poe
- 12:09:04 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-irc
- 12:09:06 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 12:09:06 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #poe
- 12:09:08 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be
- 12:09:08 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
- 12:09:09 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
- 12:09:09 [trackbot]
- Date: 17 October 2016
- 12:09:19 [victor]
- present+ victor
- 12:09:19 [phila]
- scribe: Brian
- 12:09:23 [phila]
- scribeNick: Brian_Ulicny
- 12:09:46 [phila]
- Resolution: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/10/10-poe-minutes
- 12:10:14 [phila]
- regrets+ Renato, Sabrina
- 12:10:21 [Brian_Ulicny]
- Simon has gone through all the requirements based on the TPAC.
- 12:10:50 [phila]
- present+ Ben, Brian, Caroline, Michael, Phil, Simon, Victor
- 12:11:00 [phila]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 12:11:02 [Brian_Ulicny]
- benws: "the list of requirements on the sheet were the ones that had been accepted"
- 12:11:06 [phila]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 12:11:06 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-minutes.html phila
- 12:11:35 [benws]
- q?
- 12:11:37 [smyles]
- smyles has joined #poe
- 12:11:39 [simonstey]
- https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements
- 12:11:44 [phila]
- chair: Ben
- 12:11:54 [michaelS]
- q+
- 12:12:00 [Brian_Ulicny]
- Simon asks the group before the next call to go through the wiki requirements and check whether Simon has correctly captured the status of the requirements.
- 12:12:03 [Serena]
- present+ Serena
- 12:12:11 [victor]
- ok, so we are supposed to read this again and provide feedback.
- 12:12:24 [phila]
- present+ smyles
- 12:12:25 [smyles]
- present+
- 12:13:18 [Brian_Ulicny]
- Simon directs attention especially to the blue colored requirements.
- 12:13:33 [phila]
- q+
- 12:13:39 [phila]
- ack m
- 12:13:47 [Brian_Ulicny]
- So group is enjoined to please look at the use case doc and requirements.
- 12:14:07 [James]
- James has joined #poe
- 12:14:18 [James]
- present +
- 12:14:40 [simonstey]
- +q
- 12:14:46 [simonstey]
- present+
- 12:14:52 [Brian_Ulicny]
- Michael mentions that the contributor of the use case should make sure that the use cases and requirements line up.
- 12:15:13 [Brian_Ulicny]
- Michael "especially the ones marked agreed without discussion"
- 12:15:18 [Serena]
- q?
- 12:15:28 [Brian_Ulicny]
- benws: "how could they be agreed without discussion?"
- 12:15:55 [simonstey]
- zakim, who's here?
- 12:15:55 [Zakim]
- Present: victor, Ben, Brian, Caroline, Michael, Phil, Simon, Serena, smyles, simonstey
- 12:15:57 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see James, smyles, Zakim, RRSAgent, CarolineB, benws, Brian_Ulicny, victor, michaelS, phila, Serena, simonstey, trackbot
- 12:16:23 [phila]
- ack me
- 12:16:25 [Brian_Ulicny]
- michael: "they were assumed to be agreed based on call to discuss"
- 12:16:35 [michaelS]
- q-
- 12:16:41 [Brian_Ulicny]
- Phil: "am I supposed to be looking at wiki or editor's draft?"
- 12:16:50 [michaelS]
- q
- 12:16:54 [michaelS]
- q-
- 12:17:00 [Brian_Ulicny]
- Simon: "look at wiki"
- 12:17:31 [Brian_Ulicny]
- benws: "agreed that wiki is canonical version"
- 12:17:58 [benws]
- "for now ...2
- 12:18:39 [Brian_Ulicny]
- phil: do we need to assign action items? Or agree that after a certain date, everything will be transferred from wiki to editor's draft.
- 12:18:52 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "we need to concentrate the mind"
- 12:19:45 [Brian_Ulicny]
- simon: "there's only one requirement left that has 'agreed without discussion'"
- 12:20:20 [michaelS]
- q+
- 12:20:24 [Brian_Ulicny]
- has to do with notes and formal semantics
- 12:20:30 [benws]
- q?
- 12:20:42 [Brian_Ulicny]
- michael: "on lowest part of page, we have a 'needs consideration'"
- 12:20:53 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "three have undefined status -- only proposed"
- 12:21:09 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "so are they still under consideration"
- 12:21:34 [Brian_Ulicny]
- Simon: "no, I forgot to change status. Discussed on 23d. Will change"
- 12:21:37 [benws]
- q?
- 12:21:40 [michaelS]
- q-
- 12:21:48 [simonstey]
- q-
- 12:22:09 [Brian_Ulicny]
- benws: "let's move on to tech discussion - constraints on constraints"
- 12:22:15 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "three possibilities"
- 12:22:25 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "let's take use case of embargo"
- 12:22:45 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "one suggestion: create an emargo"
- 12:22:53 [michaelS]
- q+
- 12:23:14 [simonstey]
- q+
- 12:23:16 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "another solution (ivan): create two kinds of has constraint property -- one like we already have, another a qualified containt"
- 12:23:30 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "third option: chain constraints together"
- 12:23:39 [benws]
- q?
- 12:23:45 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "any other options?"
- 12:24:08 [Brian_Ulicny]
- victor: "sent an example earlier this am as Sparql query"
- 12:24:23 [victor]
- http://cosasbuenas.es/static/ComplexrestrictionswithSPARQL.pdf
- 12:24:39 [Brian_Ulicny]
- victor posts suggestion
- 12:25:03 [Brian_Ulicny]
- victor: "requires sparql endpoint"
- 12:25:04 [simonstey]
- which is actually SHACL
- 12:25:09 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "using SPIN"
- 12:25:31 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "example is self-explanatory"
- 12:25:56 [Brian_Ulicny]
- benws: "isn't this an example of the first use case - creation of a complex object"
- 12:26:08 [phila]
- q+ to say that any one of those three objections on their own out this solution
- 12:26:09 [Brian_Ulicny]
- victor: "Yes that's right"
- 12:26:18 [benws]
- q?
- 12:26:35 [phila]
- ack m
- 12:26:59 [Brian_Ulicny]
- michael: "i could only join meeting by audio in lisbon"
- 12:27:08 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "can't understand model behind these examples"
- 12:27:22 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "would be great help for everyone on the call"
- 12:27:33 [Brian_Ulicny]
- benws: "I will publish some example"
- 12:27:54 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "existing constraint model allows contraint only on one predicate or property"
- 12:28:15 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "let's say there's an embargo on extract from football match"
- 12:28:31 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "need to know end of event time and offset interval"
- 12:28:54 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "our existing constraint model can only handle one parameter"
- 12:29:35 [Brian_Ulicny]
- benws: "the first model is where object of predicate is a complex item -- e.g. an embargo object"
- 12:30:48 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "second option allows two types of constraint: one standard, the second is qualified constraint qualified by external object"
- 12:31:02 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "inject the additional constraints into the external object"
- 12:31:23 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "third option: multiple constraints chained together"
- 12:31:26 [phila]
- q?
- 12:31:37 [phila]
- ack s
- 12:31:43 [Brian_Ulicny]
- simon: "have a lot to say"
- 12:32:10 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "before we introduce fancy constraints, we need to understand what we want ODRL to be/allow"
- 12:32:18 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "do we want to do constraint checking?"
- 12:32:28 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "do we want to verify that constraints hold?"
- 12:33:03 [Brian_Ulicny]
- simon: are we just concerned with expressiveness?
- 12:33:45 [simonstey]
- http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
- 12:34:01 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "SHACL working group output could be used to express constraints"
- 12:34:37 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "if we go with chaining, which looks attractive,...there are problems"
- 12:34:44 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "looping, for example"
- 12:34:59 [smyles]
- q+
- 12:35:06 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "i really want to discourage going down chaining route"
- 12:35:29 [Brian_Ulicny]
- phil: "whichever option is chosen, need to build it"
- 12:35:55 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "someone should try to implement this stuff -- W3C suggests that you need to do this stuff"
- 12:36:10 [Brian_Ulicny]
- benws: "I am writing code around this"
- 12:36:34 [phila]
- ack me
- 12:36:34 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to say that any one of those three objections on their own out this solution
- 12:36:41 [Brian_Ulicny]
- benws: "can simon provide some concrete examples of dangers of chaining?"
- 12:36:47 [Brian_Ulicny]
- simon: "yes"
- 12:37:30 [Brian_Ulicny]
- phil: "problems listed in the PDF show why this solution is not the right one"
- 12:37:46 [phila]
- ack sm
- 12:38:01 [Brian_Ulicny]
- sm: "plea for non-complex constraints"
- 12:38:25 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "video editors have these constraints all the time"
- 12:39:13 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "often an embargo is turned from relative time to concrete time: embargo will definitely be over by x o'clock"
- 12:39:31 [simonstey]
- +q
- 12:39:35 [Brian_Ulicny]
- benws: "embargoes are not the only complex constraint"
- 12:39:44 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "payments are another example"
- 12:39:55 [benws]
- q?
- 12:40:29 [Brian_Ulicny]
- simon: "regarding renato's chaining example, not sure if example is complex enough"
- 12:41:02 [simonstey]
- odrl:constraint [ a odrl:Constraint ; odrl:operator odrl:eq ; odrl:event <http://epl.com/vocab/afterMatch> ; odrl:constraint <http://example.com/30minEmbargo">http://example.com/30minEmbargo>; ]. <http://example.com/30minEmbargo> a odrl:Constraint ; odrl:operator odrl:eq ; odrl:dateTime "P30M"^^xsd:duration .
- 12:41:02 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "permission is granted during an event"
- 12:41:57 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "point is that I've encountered a situation where there is no property that can be used"
- 12:42:18 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "the property is not adequate to address the use case"
- 12:42:28 [benws]
- q?
- 12:42:41 [simonstey]
- q-
- 12:42:51 [Brian_Ulicny]
- benws: "let's take this discussion to mailing list and reconvene next week"
- 12:42:58 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "will provide concrete examples"
- 12:43:11 [simonstey]
- +q
- 12:43:47 [simonstey]
- https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/45
- 12:44:00 [Brian_Ulicny]
- simon: "raised an issue on github wrt relations"
- 12:44:19 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "does it make sense to have extended relations for permissions?"
- 12:44:30 [simonstey]
- https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#extended-relations
- 12:45:22 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "spec says that if you and permissions then you have to do all of them. this is wrong"
- 12:45:35 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "you have to do all ANDed duties, not permission"
- 12:45:41 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "permissions"
- 12:45:55 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "what does it mean to tie permissions with an OR?"
- 12:46:25 [benws]
- q?
- 12:46:37 [Brian_Ulicny]
- simon: "either you have to satisfy this constraint or that constraint"
- 12:46:39 [Serena]
- q+
- 12:46:57 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "specification is wrong. Uses 'may not', which is not defined."
- 12:47:11 [simonstey]
- q-
- 12:47:24 [phila]
- ack s
- 12:47:48 [Brian_Ulicny]
- serena: "I agree with simon. Connectors for duties and constraints, not relations"
- 12:48:16 [phila]
- PROPOSED: That the extended relations (AND, OR, XOR) will only apply to Duties and Constraints, not Permissions and Prohibitions
- 12:48:41 [simonstey]
- +1
- 12:48:48 [benws]
- +1
- 12:48:48 [Serena]
- +1
- 12:49:04 [Brian_Ulicny]
- not sure
- 12:49:50 [James]
- +1
- 12:50:24 [phila]
- present+ James
- 12:50:30 [phila]
- victor: +1
- 12:50:35 [phila]
- RESOLUTION: That the extended relations (AND, OR, XOR) will only apply to Duties and Constraints, not Permissions and Prohibitions
- 12:50:36 [smyles]
- +1
- 12:50:41 [michaelS]
- +1
- 12:50:54 [Brian_Ulicny]
- benws: "will quickly run through open actions"
- 12:51:01 [benws]
- https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open
- 12:51:28 [phila]
- action-25?
- 12:51:28 [trackbot]
- action-25 -- Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel to Provide an example of how good relations vocab support 'unit-of-count' -- due 2016-09-29 -- OPEN
- 12:51:28 [trackbot]
- https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/25
- 12:51:34 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "victor, you were going to provide an example of unit-of-count"
- 12:51:42 [phila]
- action-30?
- 12:51:42 [trackbot]
- action-30 -- Stuart Myles to Can we only have a json-ld serialisation? will it impact righstml? -- due 2016-09-30 -- OPEN
- 12:51:42 [trackbot]
- https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/30
- 12:52:52 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "simon, yours will always be open"
- 12:52:56 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "issues raised"
- 12:53:03 [phila]
- q+
- 12:53:11 [phila]
- ack me
- 12:53:44 [Brian_Ulicny]
- phila: "do we need to follow issues in github as well?"
- 12:54:02 [Brian_Ulicny]
- "we just need to make sure that we track ALL the issues"
- 12:54:18 [Brian_Ulicny]
- simon: "is there integration with IRC and the github tracker?"
- 12:54:25 [Brian_Ulicny]
- phila: "No"
- 12:54:29 [phila]
- -> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues GitHub Tracker
- 12:54:45 [Brian_Ulicny]
- 15 issues on github tracker currently
- 12:55:00 [Brian_Ulicny]
- phila: "Most raised by renator"
- 12:55:06 [Brian_Ulicny]
- *renato
- 12:55:53 [simonstey]
- issue-1
- 12:55:53 [trackbot]
- issue-1 -- The number of times we need to refer to the target -- closed
- 12:55:53 [trackbot]
- https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/1
- 12:56:05 [Brian_Ulicny]
- simon: "easier to look up issues in IRC via trackbot"
- 12:56:07 [victor]
- I can solve mine inmediatly Action 25. the example that is requested can be seen in slide 18 of http://tutorials.oeg-upm.net/rightslinkeddata/session4b.pdf
- 12:56:57 [phila]
- Topic: AOB
- 12:57:05 [Brian_Ulicny]
- benws: "can bring this up next week."
- 12:57:40 [Brian_Ulicny]
- victor: "next f2f: when, where, who (ben is necessary)"
- 12:57:43 [phila]
- phila: I think Renato might well be there
- 12:58:03 [phila]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 12:58:03 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-minutes.html phila
- 12:58:04 [Brian_Ulicny]
- phila: "suggest a date, we'll take it from there"
- 12:58:18 [Serena]
- Serena has left #poe
- 12:58:36 [phila]
- s/phila/benws/
- 12:58:41 [phila]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 12:58:41 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-minutes.html phila
- 15:22:32 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #poe
- 16:38:57 [benws]
- benws has joined #poe
- 16:42:45 [benws2]
- benws2 has joined #poe
- 18:19:40 [benws]
- benws has joined #poe
- 18:23:26 [benws2]
- benws2 has joined #poe