See also: IRC log
<renato> Any volunteers to Scribe? Or we take the next on the list: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Scribes
<scribe> scribe: jo
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes
PROPOSAL: Approve minutes from 16 May
<phila> +1
<Serena> +1
<Brian_Ulicny> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes from 16 May
RESOLUTION: Approved minutes from 16 May
renato: simon, Sabrina, Victor have volunteered to be editors
renato: Carry over from last week, Action was on Ben
benws: I failed to make a proposal
renato: carry over to next week
michaels: Phila changes some things this morning
phila: I did two things, 1 add a
use case from Euro Data Portal
... they have had to look through all licenses attached to
data
... they have made a grid of what inter operates with
what
... I made that into a requirement
... key thing is to be able to express "this interpretation is
a view of person x" i.e. provenance is important
... not a legal claim
... I also made a trivial amenment to Stuart's use case
michaels: Stuart's use case - use
case 07 has been added
... first item also appears in many others
... "supports ODRL 2.1"
... so we need to collect the current ODRL requirements
<michaelS> Requirements page https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements
michaels: should this be done in the ODRL community or here?
(silence)
<phila> ODR:L Reqs?
phila: I have found a page that
has a call for requirements for a linked data profile
... a lot of material there
... however there is no existing document that collects all
ODRL requirements
renato: there so is
<victor> https://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/2.0/WD-v2req-20050213.html
renato: after 1.1 we put together
requirements based on feedback
... we used that as a baseline
phila: need something in a stable
place ...
... the phil test is "can I read this and assess whether POE
meets those requirements"
renato: this is not a normal
working group
... yes, we start from the baseline of ODRL 2.1
<james> Apologies for joining late!
renato: meets community
requirements
... not sure whether going through the requirements for 2.0 2.1
gets us anywhere
... better to move on to new stuff
... don't think that everything that is supported is in the
requirements
phila: it's the delta we need to identify
renato: it's a given that 2.1
requirements are supported
... michael and ben, we havea collection of use cases on the
Web site and we need to end up with a note
... are you happy with the way it's going, what input do you
need
benws: need more use cases and I
need to add some. Likely to be iterative in that some will
suggest others.
... after that I can feed back to group what the delta is
<renato> https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/
renato: looking at what others in
W3C have done
... is this something that we want to copy?
phila: doubt we need to produce one that long
<renato> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-ucr/
phila: don't expect there to be
50 use cases, but the structure is very good, in-document
hyperlinks are auto generated
... so less work than you might think
benws: we have discussed having a
primer "how ODRL can solve your rights management issues"
... can the use case morph into a primer?
renato: current ODRL has "Scenarios" to help the reader understand what problem is being solved
<michaelS> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open
michaels: I looked at open
actions page and there are some use case actions in there
... people whould close actions if they have done it
phila: I m leaving my actions open as I am still talking
ACTION-7?
<trackbot> ACTION-7 -- Benedict Whittam Smith to Provide use cases on financial data -- due 2016-04-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/7
jo: if you think you have done
your action, mark it as pending review
... then on the next call it can get closed during the next
call
<phila> Use Case
ACTION-4?
<trackbot> ACTION-4 -- Phil Archer to Write use case from VRE project about time limited restrictions and metadata -- due 2016-04-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/4
phil: I have completed action-4
<benws2> +1
<phila> close action-4
<trackbot> Closed action-4.
renato: any other use cases you want to discuss on this call
benws: want to understand the point victor made about adding additional information
victor: I was requested to provide additional info, but need more info from editors as to how to do this
michaels: I have raised some thing responding to victor
renato: victor can you get back to michaels
victor: yes I did
michaels: then I asked more questions
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about numbering
phila: trivially, we are putting
numbers on the use cases, which is nice, but they get
transferred across to documents which turns out weird and
confusing
... let's use the not numbering
... or we could refer by name
jo: surely better not to number things since it makes it more difficult to change order (i.e. name them)
renato: give every use case a
short name
... two three words at most
<michaelS> Supports short names
<victor> +1
<benws2> +1
PROPOSAL: we use short names to refer to use cases on both wiki and in the document
<phila> +1
<renato> +
<james> +1
<ivan> 0
<smyles> +1
<sabrina> +1
<michaelS> +1
<Brian_Ulicny> +1
<renato> +1
RESOLUTION: we use short names to refer to use cases on both wiki and in the document
renato: back to use case
analysis
... anything more from the editors or anyone else
michaels: may deadline is "in doubt"
renato: june?
michaels: more realistic
<phila> W3C isn't going to worry about one month delay at this stage. Later stages, yes, but not yet.
PROPOSAL: New deliverable date for use cases is end June
<Serena> +1
<james> +1
<phila> +1
<benws2> +1
<michaelS> +1
<Brian_Ulicny> +1
<ivan> +1
<renato> +1
<sabrina> +1
<smyles> +1
RESOLUTION: New deliverable date for use cases is end June
phila: if we are able to publish
use cases end june, then so much the better
... if we can add the first drafts of the other docs
... then we have baseline and delta
... same day publication of all three docs
<benws2> +1
renato: agree
... we will publish all three end of June, give the community
some idea of where we are heading
phila: end of June is latest it can be done as summer hols kick in
renato: any moratoria or something?
phila: no
michaels: then we need a cut off
date for use cases
... we wanted them in April. Some are still missing, so we need
them early June otherwise they won't be included
renato: agree
phila: actually we can't publish exactly the last week in June, but we would in 1st week of July
<phila> +1 to Michael's deadline suggestion
renato: so back to michael's point, deadline for submission of use cases is June 6
benws: can't guarantee that any use case that comes in after then will make the first draft document
renato: any more on use cases?
renato: we already looked at them
renato: tpac is coming, if you
can come please update your status
... a "fun week" worth coming!
<phila> TPAC
phila: also if you can't go
please also fill in your info
... to help with logistics
<Brian_Ulicny> -1
<smyles> -1
<michaelS> +1
<sabrina> +1
STRAW POLL: who can come next week?
<phila> -1
<james> 0
-1
<Serena> +1
<renato> +1
<michaelS> +1
<sabrina> +1
<smyles> -1
phila: gingoistic comment of some kind
renato: next week's call will go ahead
[meeting closed]