Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

<renato> Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Scribes

<simonstey> list participants

scribe Serena

<jo> scribe: serena

thanks jo

Renato: Welcome to Brian (Thompson Reuters)
... we hava to approve the minutes of the last meeting

<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes

RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes

<mmcrober> +1

<benws> +1

<smyles> +1

+1

<michaelS> +1

<victor> +1

Renato: editors for documents have to be confirmed

: for the information model, we propose myself and Serena as editors

Renato: for the vocabulary spec, we propose myself, mmcrober, and James

thanks Jo ;-)

<michaelS> do we have the names of the Vocabl doc?

scribe: comments from the group on these two specs

renato: consensus on having two deliverables
... did you want to revisit that?

mmcrober: yes, from memory we have reasonable arguments from both side

renato: we didn't make a decision

mmcrober: high level diagram to point to the model

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to note that formally we need resultions of editors

renato: any other comments?

jo: raise an issue on having a single spec or not

<simonstey> issue-2

<trackbot> issue-2 -- Use Cases -- open

<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/2

<simonstey> issue-1

<trackbot> issue-1 -- The number of times we need to refer to the target -- closed

<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/1

<simonstey> issue-3

<trackbot> issue-3 -- Deliverables Work Plan -- open

<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/3

<renato> ACTION: renato add issues related to moving to one spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - Add issues related to moving to one spec [on Renato Iannella - due 2016-05-16].

RESOLUTION: editors for the Info Model ; Renato and Serena

<simonstey> +q

<simonstey> -q

<victor> +q

<mmcrober> +1

<smyles> +1

<michaelS> +1

+1

victor: I'd like to join the work on the ontology

renato: we can keep you as the first reserve

<renato> PROPOSED: editors for the Vocab Expression: Renato, Michael, Mo, Stuart, James

<simonstey> +1

+1

<smyles> +1

<michaelS> +1

<benws> +1

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to make reference to mmcrober's point

acj jo

jo: five editors is potentially a lot

renato: different skills from the individuals
... everyone contributes and will be acknowledged appropriately

<mmcrober> +1

<smyles> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: editors for the Vocab Expression: Renato, Michael, Mo, Stuart, James

renato: item 2 on the agenda
... named of the specification

name of specification

renato: the issue is that the new spec will be called ODRL information model

mmcrober: we need a pretty strong case to change the name
... there is no rule stating that the name of the spec directly the name of the group creating the spec
... in favor of keeping odrl

<simonstey> +q

renato: any comments?

simonstey: where does the O in ODRL came from?

renato: there was another language for patterns and it was not open, the competitor was not open to emphasize ODRL was open

<benws> +q

renato: we added the O

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to note that phila said there are specific sensitivities regarding name

<smyles> agree with mmcrober

jo: I suggest that what we do is that the name is ODRL for now

<smyles> open digital riot language?

renato: the issue is DMR is an issue for W3C, the big issue is the R = rights. What we did is in ODRL 2.0 there is not the word right in the spec. We used policy.
... ODRL stands for ODRL

<jo> PROPOSAL: The standard is known as ODRL, for historical reasons, there is not specific meaning attached to any of the letters

<mmcrober> +1

<smyles> GNU

RESOLUTION: We will use the name ODRL for our devliverables

<michaelS> +1

<smyles> we have two RESOLUTIONs

<benws> -1

<smyles> oh wait - one PROPOSAL, one RESOLUTION and no vote?

<simonstey> -1

RESOLUTION: last resolution is revoked

deliverable workplan

renato: first public working draft as a slight modification of ODRL one

mmcrober: from the last session, we have a discussion about having the voc RDF centric
... or not. The ontology doc is generated with RDF with html template. In transitioning, do we maintain our process?

renato: good point, the mechanics of the spec have to be considered too. We just need to look at how the process works. Editors have to sit down and discuss it.

benws: clarification: it makes perfect sense to have an RDF-centric approach, but if we want to move on we need to go for jason first
... people reading the spec will be jason minded

smyles: jason is not a great language for modeling

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to agree with and amplify benws's point

<simonstey> I would suggest to use some javascript magic as in https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/

<simonstey> to switch between the different encodings

smyles: json is not generated from RDF. We can't commit to preserve any encodings. We ended up to: guidelines for any kind of implementation.

renato: we would try to use our ontology to generate the voc spec
... there will be the xml, the json, the json-ld

<benws> +1

renato: we need to express that in the narratives of the doc
... fist working draft will be the starting point

s first/first

scribe: editors look at the doc and decide the issues to be discussed

use cases

michaelS: a number of use cases have been written, I've been reading them, requirements should be extracted from the use cases, I've shared the questions with the persons editing them on the wiki
... the requirements should be clear, measurable, testable
... on GitHub we have the editors draft
... group requirements, refinement

renato: back to the editing, benws and simonstey will join michaelS in editing the use cases document

<renato> PROPOSAL: Ben and Simon will also be editors on the UCR NOTE

<simonstey> +1

+1

<benws> +1

<smyles> +1

<mmcrober> +1

RESOLUTION: Ben and Simon will also be editors on the UCR NOTE

renato: we're also looking to the other deliverables which is formal semantics, we're contacting people to take care of it.

<simonstey> +q

michaelS: the issue is how to share, in the description there are also requirements, should we extract the requirements from the description or do we ask the authors?

simonstey: we encouraged the authors to extract the requirements, the editors have the power to extract new requirements
... raise an issue if you're not convinced it's a requirement
... the WG has to say this is truly a requirement

any other business

renato: F2F meeting in Lisbon - TPAC
... add your name to the list of attendees if you plan to go
... final final business?

michaelS: next monday is holidays

<jo> straw poll?

<jo> PROPOSAL: no meeting next week

renato: meeting next week

<victor> It is day off in Spain. I might make an effort to attend.

<simonstey> 0

<jo> 0

<renato> 0

<mmcrober> 0

<magyarblip> 0

+1

<benws> -1

<smyles> 0

<michaelS> +1

RESOLUTION: The meeting will take place on 16th May

benws: we will loose a lot of meetings if we follow back holidays on each countries

<jo> [meeting closed]