See also: IRC log
<michaelS> present# michaelS
<scribe> scribe: simonstey
<renato> agenda https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160404
renato: approval of last week's minutes
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/03/24-poe-minutes
<phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes
<phila> +1
+1
<mmcrober> +1
<james> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes
<magyarblip> +1
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases
<michaelS> +1
renato: michael proposed a first template
<magyarblip> something weird happening on webex - apparently i am now host
<renato> i am rejoining webex now too...
[some issues with webex]
michaelS: the use case page now
contains a uc template
... inspired from other group's template
... demographic information about uc owner
<renato> @phila how do I do that?
michaelS: template also contains natural & formal language expression sections for describing the uc
<renato> (done, I am host)
michaelS: technical expression
may include information relating to data model
... based on that template, I've created an example uc
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about process
michaelS: the included "dummy use case" is actually a real world uc
phila: one thing that worried me
was the fact that you said you had an offline discussion with
james to set up the template
... such discussions need to be made online/with consent of the
group
michaelS: do we need contact details for ucs?
phila: if you want to, that's
good.. but it's not essential
... the more real world a uc is, the better
magyarblip: looking at the uc, it's way more extensive than I would have expected at this stage
<mmcrober> I'd echo that - it seems like an expression of how ODRL is actually used in practice, rather than a *desirable* usecase
renato: I think we should clearly
state what parts are optional/mandatory
... we should try to express what we want to have/what we
require, rather than already providing a solution
mmcrober: I'm happy with the
template
... I would like to see a minimum dummy uc
... I can provide research related ucs
<phila> ACTION: Mo to provide use case from research and education domain [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Provide use case from research and education domain [on Mo McRoberts - due 2016-04-11].
<mmcrober> for info, the Research & Education Space I refer to is: https://bbcarchdev.github.io/res/
victor: we should also consider requirements
phila: yes, requirements need to be explicit
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Reqs
phila: the same requirements can
come from multiple ucs
... you may end up merging requirements, point to other
requirements, ...
... we should have them at the end of each uc
<phila> simonstey: Just think about what you said earlier about there being no new requirements. We need to somewhere make those old requiremetns explicit
<phila> ... No one knows all the old ODRL requirements. We can take tham as a basis and revise them, rather than just storing new requirements.
benws: I wanted to say we should
distinguish between uc and requirements gathering
... we shouldn't set the bar so high
... but should try to gather as much input as possible
renato: I think we should first
collect use cases and in a later phase decide whether we want
to keep them -> derive requirements
... we should set an easy entry point for people to
contribute
... we might end up with removing the technical expression
part
<phila> ACTION: Renato to go to the ODRL CG to ask for use cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Go to the odrl cg to ask for use cases [on Renato Iannella - due 2016-04-11].
renato: should we make a wider call for use cases? e.g. ODRL community group or any other group?
<phila> ACTION: phila to gather use cases from BigDataEurope project [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Gather use cases from bigdataeurope project [on Phil Archer - due 2016-04-11].
renato: or do we think we will have enough input from our group members?
<phila> Use cases can come from anywhere - and are welcome
<phila> It is then for the Wg to decide whether to act on them
michaelS: are we allowed to ask colleagues for suitable input?
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to wonder about the IP context around contribution of use cases
paulj: we may consider asking formally for external input
<phila> public-poe-comments@w3.org
jo: how can the group accept input from non-members?
phila: I think it would be wise to ... [broke up]
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about public-poe-comments
<phila> Use cases are pretty free of IP
ivan: I think the question is really related to uc now, but the same question may also come up later
<phila> The danger might be that we include a load of reqs that can *only* be met by using a specific piece of software - then we'd be in trouble.
ivan: if someone external wants to contribute to the spec
<phila> Use Case doc is a Note (non-normative) so IP considerations are less important.
ivan: that's not relevant now, but keep in mind that it might come up later
jo: can we formally note how external contributions shall be made
<phila> Summary - we don't need to be too concerned about IP issues related to the use case document due teo the nature of the document. However, the ideal method of submission is via the public comments mailing list which carries some IP disclosure info.
<phila> public-poe-comments
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Anyone (outside the group) can corntribute use cases without there being an IP impediment, however it's alwyas best to contribute on public-poe-comments@w3,org
+1
<phila> I think that's fair
<magyarblip> +1
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Anyone (outside the group) can contribute use cases without there being an IP impediment, however it's alwys best to contribute on public-poe-comments@w3.org
<ivan> +1
<michaelS> +1
RESOLUTION: Anyone (outside the group) can contribute use cases without there being an IP impediment, however it's alwys best to contribute on public-poe-comments@w3.org
renato: wg members can create
additional uc in the wiki
... externals will be asked to provide their uc via mail using
our template
... we will then move them to the wiki
<magyarblip> i am going to reach out to the bisg (book industry standards group) who have been doing related work, not so much odrl as best practices for the industry
<phila> Yes, WG members should subscribe to the public comments list (it's not automatic)
<mmcrober> oh bother
mmcrober: may I propose to note that resolution on the uc wiki page?
<mmcrober> simonstey: yes please
<magyarblip> +1 anything we can point folks to that introduces them *gently* to the area
<phila> Our wiki is only writable by WG members
renato: editing the wikipage is limited to whom exactly?
phila: only wg members can edit it
michaelS: I'll update the uc page tomorrow
renato: in the charter we've
listed 5 contributions
... we wanted to get the core specs/recommendations out
asap
... we need to come up with editors for each of the 5
specs
... the vocabulary and the ontology might be very similar
contentwise
... we might consider merging them into one document in order
to avoid any update inconsistencies
... the ontology would then become a normative document
... I think it's probably reasonable to define the ontology as
our normative basis (rather than xml schema)
... we also have to decide on a name/versioning approach
james: what's the best approach to propose properties/concepts to be added to odrl?
renato: we should start using the mailing list more often
james: e.g. it would be nice to have a top level link to the target rather than referring to it in each permission/prohibition seperately
benws: james, you might should root that in a uc
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to say that sounds like an issue
benws: we might want to reconsider whether we really want to use an ontology as normative basis for our language
phila: the action tracker is also an issue tracker
<phila> issue: The number of times we need to refer to the target
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-1 - The number of times we need to refer to the target. Please complete additional details at <https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/1/edit>.
<phila> close issue-1
<trackbot> Closed issue-1.
<renato> q
<james> sounds good thanks @phila
<phila> DUB Voc
phila: you can put multiple examples in multiple encodings in the spec
+q
-q
ivan: having gone through several groups having the same issues as ben mentioned
<ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/
ivan: [explaining how web-annotation group handled that issue -> json(-ld) based]
mmcrober: the current ontology
document is pretty RDF skewed
... I think we could beef up the ontology document pretty
straight forward once we have the underlying links/connections
to the other specs
ivan: the real description of the
model is only done once in the json-ld spec
... we do not repeat the human prose
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Attending_F2F1
renato: if you know that you'll be able to attend the f2f meeting, please add your name
<victor> In the next call, I would like to see dicussed the need of a test bed / compliance document (or section within existing documents).
<victor> will post in the list
<victor> ciao!
<james> thanks.
<phila> Thanks everyone, bye.