11:47:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
11:47:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/29-poe-irc
11:47:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
11:47:22 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
11:47:24 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
11:47:24 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
11:47:25 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
11:47:25 <trackbot> Date: 29 August 2016
11:48:37 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160829
11:48:50 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Agenda for 2016-08-29: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160829
11:49:13 <ivan> Regrets: Phil, Victor
11:53:23 <renato> renato has joined #poe
11:55:39 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #poe
11:56:12 <Serena> Serena has joined #poe
11:56:47 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
11:57:40 <renato> present+ renato
11:57:47 <renato> chair: renato
11:57:58 <renato> regrets: ben, philA
11:59:05 <michaelS> present+ michaelS
11:59:43 <victor> victor has joined #poe
12:00:00 <simonstey> zakim, who is here?
12:00:00 <Zakim> Present: renato, michaelS
12:00:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see victor, michaelS, Serena, simonstey, renato, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, trackbot
12:00:10 <renato> Any volunteers to scribe: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Scribes
12:00:11 <simonstey> present+
12:00:18 <victor> present+ victor
12:01:31 <Serena> present+ Serena
12:01:38 <renato> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:01:49 <ivan> present+ Ivan
12:03:55 <michaelS> scribe: michaelS
12:04:00 <michaelS> scribeNick: michaelS
12:04:02 <victor> (if nobody else does, i can scribe, although i shall be speaking much i think)
12:04:21 <michaelS> topic: approving last weeks minutes
12:04:24 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/08/22-poe-minutes
12:04:42 <michaelS> renato: any change requests?
12:05:02 <michaelS> resolution: last weeks minutes are approved
12:05:20 <michaelS> topic: Use Cases and Requirements
12:05:34 <victor> Sure. You may want to see the UCs https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases
12:05:36 <michaelS> topic: POE.UC.01
12:05:39 <renato> UC.01 https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#langResources
12:06:08 <renato> See wiki: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#POE.UC.01_Permissions_and_obligations_for_language_resources
12:06:12 <michaelS> victor: worked on the language of this UC and removed any features already implemented
12:06:24 <michaelS> ... highlights 5 points
12:07:08 <michaelS> ... 1. Policy template - and he added examples
12:07:44 <victor> https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#requirements-for-data-on-the-web-best-practices
12:07:58 <ivan> regrets+ Sabrina
12:08:43 <michaelS> ... when a template is defined also variables in this template should be defined
12:09:43 <simonstey> ..:license [ a odrl:License; odrl:price .. ] wouldn't that be more elegant?
12:12:49 <michaelS> simonstey: should these variables be defined individually or by a single statement?
12:13:50 <michaelS> victor: there could be a mix: two variable are the same across many template-base policies
12:14:14 <michaelS> ... and only one variable is changes for individual policies
12:14:57 <michaelS> simonstey: is concerned that this may go beyond agreed ODRL features - would make license expresses much more complex
12:15:11 <michaelS> victor: saw simonstey's point
12:15:54 <michaelS> renato: would a full now policy be created from a template?
12:16:18 <victor> http://company.com/odrlpolicytemplate1?price=1000&currency=EUR
12:16:21 <michaelS> victor: thinks about having a link to a template plus parameters defining the varibales
12:16:32 <michaelS> ... and shared an example link
12:16:57 <victor> (I believe this should not be part of ODRL, but illustrates a possible implementation)
12:17:19 <michaelS> q+
12:17:50 <michaelS> simonstey: would prefer a variant with templates holding default values
12:18:21 <renato> michael: versionsing of the template?
12:18:53 <renato> ...how to refer to real policy wand with an identifier?
12:20:32 <michaelS> renato: shared the concern that such dynamic creation of policies is too complex - as e.g. also an API for creating an instance would be required
12:20:48 <victor> <a_resource> dct:license <https://example.com/uri.of.an.odrl.expression/> .
12:22:06 <michaelS> victor: shared a triple which should be used to set a license for a resource
12:22:39 <simonstey> +q
12:22:40 <michaelS> renato: this means: that's a policy having all but the asset defined
12:22:45 <michaelS> q-
12:23:15 <michaelS> renato: the user has to take care that the related policy does not change over time
12:24:41 <michaelS> simonstey: a policy type set can exist without an asset
12:24:59 <michaelS> q+
12:25:50 <victor> Odrl 2.1 ontology https://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ODRL21
12:25:56 <michaelS> simonstey:  suggested to create a policy type "license" for this use case
12:26:27 <victor> (second excerpt of code in that document)
12:26:29 <simonstey> +1 to that ;)
12:27:24 <michaelS> michaelS: in the news business linked policies without an included asset are quite common
12:27:57 <michaelS> renato: we may need to make the definitions of the policy types clearer
12:28:31 <michaelS> victor: about issue 2. Ability to group parties, assets and policies
12:28:48 <simonstey> +1 to be able to group assets & policies
12:29:01 <simonstey> +q
12:29:28 <michaelS> simonstey: supports this requirement
12:29:53 <michaelS> ... is there a way to assing a party to a group?
12:30:41 <victor> I copy here verbatim the 2.1 model spec: "group: indicates that the Party entity represents a group. The group consisting of many individual members. The linked Permission, Duty or Prohibition is applicable for each member of that group. For example, a (constrained) Permission to play a movie 5 times is valid for each Party member or the Duty to pay 3 EUR has to be fulfilled by each Party member."
12:31:22 <michaelS> renato: no, the current ODRL does not support expressing which entities are member of a group
12:32:29 <michaelS> simonstey: thinks about creating a group asset and then it should be possible to add links to the related individual assets
12:32:49 <michaelS> renato: what should be done with a group of policies?
12:33:48 <michaelS> simonstey: currently a single license should include all permissions and prohibiltions - but it would be convenient in some cases to split this up into multiple policies
12:34:47 <michaelS> ... issue: how to deal with conflicts among policies - should it be possible to indicate rules different from conflict checking inside a policy
12:35:17 <michaelS> q-
12:35:45 <simonstey> q-
12:36:00 <michaelS> victor: about issue 3. Information on the rightsholder
12:36:39 <simonstey> only point to the last previous rights holder?
12:37:41 <michaelS> victor: creator will never change - and the current rights holder should be included
12:38:41 <michaelS> renato:  could be added as a term to the vocabulary
12:38:52 <michaelS> victor: about 4. Inform and Redeposit
12:39:38 <michaelS> ... feels that this is not included in the current vocab
12:41:12 <michaelS> renato: the acceptTracking may cover that
12:41:15 <renato> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-odrl/#term-inform
12:41:26 <renato> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-odrl/#term-informedParty
12:42:05 <michaelS> michaelS: isn't victor's case going in the other direction: the assignee has to send the (modified) asset back to the assigner
12:42:30 <michaelS> victor: for the redeposit we need a new term
12:42:31 <michaelS> ren
12:42:35 <michaelS> renato: yes
12:43:02 <michaelS> topic: POE UC.02
12:43:08 <victor> https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#licenses
12:43:16 <renato> uc.02 https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#conditionalAccess
12:43:38 <michaelS> victor: this links shows a similar need by that W3C group
12:44:39 <michaelS> renato: had a long list of comments on this example 5 earlier this year
12:45:07 <michaelS> victor: thinks the text of example 5 is valid
12:45:35 <michaelS> ... many requirements are pending, primarily vocabulary-related
12:47:12 <michaelS> renato: we have to consider if the requested terms are sufficient generic - too specif terms should not go into an ODRL vocab
12:47:50 <michaelS> ... We could add links to specifications in another vocabulary
12:48:20 <simonstey> +q
12:48:45 <michaelS> victor: not sure if all details of UC.02 should be kept in the ODRL scenario - as it goes a bit beyond it
12:49:39 <michaelS> simonstey: this type of use could be covered by an ODRL Profile - giving clear guidelines how this UC should be managed
12:49:53 <michaelS> victor: this is ok with him
12:50:04 <michaelS> simonstey: but then we need a spec for this profile!
12:50:29 <simonstey> +1 to that
12:50:33 <Serena> +1
12:50:51 <michaelS> renato: ODRL could share a note about this profile together with any of its own recommendations.
12:51:57 <michaelS> topic: UC.20
12:52:03 <renato> https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#extDecPaymentAmount
12:52:54 <michaelS> victor: this UC is highly related to the template issue - see above
12:53:02 <renato> UC.21 https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#constraintScope
12:53:11 <michaelS> topic: UC.21
12:54:18 <michaelS> victor: pointed at the example
12:54:59 <victor> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#Constraints_imposed_on_properties_of_key_entities_of_the_data_model
12:55:55 <michaelS> renato: the current constraints apply primarily to the actions - we have to consider opening this up
12:57:21 <michaelS> renato: opening up a constraint to any property of a policy would make the use more flexible
12:58:15 <michaelS> renato: thanked victor for going over all these UC in detail
12:58:36 <michaelS> topic: WG Tracker
12:58:47 <michaelS> renato: no changes since the last call
12:59:04 <michaelS> ... asked Serena to take action
12:59:19 <michaelS> topic: AOB - TPAC
12:59:40 <michaelS> renato: will add a note about the ODRL profile discussed today
13:00:06 <michaelS> renato: thanked all, was a productive call
13:00:23 <Serena> Serena has left #poe
13:01:38 <renato> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:01:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/29-poe-minutes.html renato
14:51:05 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe