See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: jo
benws: lots of people missing because of hiolidays in (the rest of) europe
PROPOSAL: Agree minutes of last meeting https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes
<renato> +1
<smyles> +1
<phila> 0 wasn't there
<benws> +1
<magyarblip> +1
<james> +1
RESOLUTION: Agree minutes of last meeting https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes
benws: This is the name that the
standard will go by, not the namespace
... can't call it Open Digital Rights, let's clarify the
sensitivity
phila: W3C is not saying the word
rights is a problem, it's the community that says it is
... we can say that ODRL does not stand for anything
... I don't feel strongly, the only people who have said it's a
problem are members of the ODRL community
smyles: IPTC IPTC decided to call
it's effort based on ODRL RightsML
... tells people what it is about, or what it is for
... not immediately clear what ODRL stands for
... can we come up with a name that is more secriptive
... want to stick with odrl as a namespace
benws: is it important that the name has meaning
smyles: yes
renato: my preference is to continue to use ODRL - it has a long history
<magyarblip> only do right language?
renato: don't see it as a problem if the meaning of the letters is not stated
magyarblip: historical artefact, you do forget what these things mean, don't see the issue, already well-known
benws: anyone else?
... seems eccentric to call something by an acronym that dare
not speak its name
... do want people to talk about it
... name should have a resonance
... uptake is only a fraction of what it will be and would
prefer to find a different name
... finding it impossible to change the name when discussing to
POE
phila: don't have a strong view,
however if we stick with ODRL, then fact that R stands for
Rights creates a problem that we may have to change later
... do we think that R is a problem in any community
... we made several attempts at naming this group L for
Licensing etc etc etc
... no one is particularly happy with POE
... don't want to have to back-track
... W3C is facing lots of comments with Encrypted Media
Extensions
... we don't want to get engaged with that kind of distraction
if we can avoid it
renato: RightsML is a profile of
ODRL, the idea was to create profiles and they can name it what
they want
... if we called it foobar then it would still be about
rights
... the controversy about EME is nothing to do with it being
called EME, after all
... the name won't make any difference to any controversy it
may attract
benws: I think the name makes a
lot of difference around uptake at least
... also what is nice about POE is that it is clear that it is
about "Expression" not "Enforcement" of rights
<Brian_Ulicny> I'm happy with POE as the name, but still using odrl as namespace etc for historical reasons
benws: and people do jump to the conclusion that ODRL is about enforcement
<smyles> http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html "there are two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors"
benws: straw poll time
<Brian_Ulicny> No
<benws> -1
PROPOSAL: The standard wil be called ODRL
<renato> +1
<smyles> +1
<Brian_Ulicny> Sorry.
<Brian_Ulicny> -1
<magyarblip> i really don't care
<magyarblip> i care that it exists
<simonstey> +0.5 (in absence of any other alternative)
<james> 0 - I prefer the term Permission as I think its more accurate and matches what exists in the model
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about depth of TR's disapproval
phila: the aim of the process is
to reach consensus (general agreement with no strong
objections)
... if anyone feels strongly then you can raise a formal
objection
... if that happens then chairs are asked to resolve then and
if that doesn't happen then it gets escalated
smyles: what is difficult about
the proposal
... what else might it be called, since it's hard to make a
call otherwise
jo: +1 to smyles
<magyarblip> +1
benws: action on those who are not happy to come up with alternatives
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to initiate a conversation on list to resolve what the alternative names might be [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-10 - Initiate a conversation on list to resolve what the alternative names might be [on Benedict Whittam Smith - due 2016-05-23].
benws: how many ppl on this call have provided a use case?
<smyles> i have provided a use case
<phila> I have
benws: those who have provided a use can, can you pls note if a change to ODRL is presupposed by your use case
smyles: think it is possible, but could do with clarification - can this be used for exceptional or supplemental licenses
<james> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases
smyles: perhaps the processing model should be clarified or expanded
benws: does your use case touvh template things
smyles: no, but perhaps I should
add that
... museum community would be keen
<scribe> ACTION: myles to add a template use case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - Add a template use case [on Stuart Myles - due 2016-05-23].
phila: my use case is already covered I think - temporal aspect from date or between dates
renato: yes date constraints are covered
<magyarblip> q
magyarblip: I have been torturing
myself (a little bit) not so much that things are expressible,
but that they are optimal
... also too many options is a bad thing
benws: we may wish to provide
guidance on this
... are there some basic application patterns we want to
recommend
phila: is this a duplicate, but
anyway, most data that is put on a portal has a cc license of
some kind, they also want to represent what cc by means
... can we associate a document in plain text with a machine
readable decomposition of what is in it
renato: do you mean, you have an
asset, there is a human readable license there is also a
machine readable breakdown
... so long as you can actually express the natural language in
odrl ..
phila: in a machine readable way, say that the document is normative if there is a difference
<magyarblip> prov?
benws: there could be a higher level ontological issue, ODRL's job is only to express the machine readable bit
renato: there is a W3C media ontology which might solve the use cae
benws: please raise this as a use case
<magyarblip> https://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/
benws: Open data people
phila: that's ODRS
smyles: I provided a use case, michael said to list requirement that come out of use case, do I have to list everything that I think is required, or the ones that are not covered by ODRL 2.1
phila: usually the case that a
use case will throw up a list of atomic requirement most of
which will be repeated across requirements
... in the end the requirements end up being an atomic list
benws: so the answer is an
exhaustive list
... more on use cases?
benws: brian pls introduce yourself
brian: based in boston, have done OWL based policy reasoning about who can talk to whom across XMPP channels etc. just catching up on stuff and getting feet wet
meeting closed