IRC log of poe on 2016-11-07
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 12:14:00 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #poe
- 12:14:00 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/07-poe-irc
- 12:14:02 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 12:14:02 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #poe
- 12:14:04 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be
- 12:14:04 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
- 12:14:05 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
- 12:14:05 [trackbot]
- Date: 07 November 2016
- 12:14:22 [renato]
- Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161107
- 12:14:32 [renato]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 12:22:03 [simonstey]
- simonstey has joined #poe
- 12:23:27 [simonstey]
- Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161107
- 12:26:49 [simonstey]
- agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161107
- 12:26:52 [simonstey]
- hmm
- 12:30:12 [renato]
- agenda?
- 12:30:55 [michaelS]
- michaelS has joined #poe
- 12:31:42 [renato]
- trackbot, status
- 12:31:50 [simonstey]
- Meeting: Agenda for 2016-11-07 https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161107
- 12:32:00 [benws2]
- present+
- 12:32:33 [simonstey]
- present+
- 12:32:50 [phila]
- present+
- 12:34:03 [ivan]
- Present+
- 12:34:33 [Sabrina]
- Sabrina has joined #poe
- 12:34:47 [Sabrina]
- present+ sabrina
- 12:35:29 [phila]
- scribe: phila
- 12:35:32 [phila]
- scribeNick:ph
- 12:35:40 [phila]
- scribeNick: phila
- 12:36:00 [phila]
- Topic: Last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/10/31-poe-minutes.html
- 12:36:04 [michaelS]
- present+ michaelS
- 12:36:11 [phila]
- benws2: NOTUC?
- 12:36:28 [phila]
- RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes
- 12:36:31 [phila]
- chair: Ben
- 12:36:32 [simonstey]
- +q
- 12:36:43 [phila]
- Topic: UCR Note
- 12:37:08 [phila]
- simonstey: I've started to update the GH version of the doc. I added the remainingn use cases up to no.36, including the BSIG ones
- 12:37:22 [phila]
- ... I looked over our requirements
- 12:37:44 [phila]
- ... Those rejected by the WG, I have made a note accordingly.
- 12:38:03 [phila]
- ... We may want to exclude them or remove them? Or cross them out?
- 12:38:09 [smyles]
- smyles has joined #poe
- 12:38:26 [phila]
- simonstey: There are some that we agreed to but they need guidance
- 12:38:37 [phila]
- ... As currently forumlated, they're not reqs.
- 12:38:49 [smyles]
- present+
- 12:38:49 [phila]
- ... POE RR08, guidance on provenance policies, for example
- 12:39:05 [simonstey]
- http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/#POE.R.R.08
- 12:39:12 [phila]
- simonstey: IMO, this isn't a req for ODRL, but is a req for the WG deliverables
- 12:39:28 [phila]
- ... So do we keep them there?
- 12:39:43 [phila]
- benws2: It seems that we have 2 Qs
- 12:40:15 [phila]
- benws2: Should we keep in the UCR, UCs that we're not going to address, and 2. Do we keep in there reqs that we'll address in documentation
- 12:40:41 [phila]
- simonstey: There are some Reqs that re not formulated as reqs for ODRL
- 12:41:07 [phila]
- benws2: My working assumption was that we had previously agreed that we'd keep those UCs on the wiki but remove them from the actual doc.
- 12:41:16 [benws2]
- q?
- 12:41:27 [renato]
- q+
- 12:41:37 [phila]
- q- s
- 12:41:50 [phila]
- asck r
- 12:41:52 [phila]
- ack r
- 12:42:32 [phila]
- renato: From memory... we did state that UCs that we were not going to address still would appear in the UCR but be flagged as being for a future version
- 12:43:04 [phila]
- renato: Only reqs that we'll address will be in there, but all UCs are in there.
- 12:43:14 [simonstey]
- "Specific requirements that have been de-prioritized or rejected have been left in the document for completeness, but are shown as struck out."
- 12:43:14 [benws2]
- q?
- 12:44:42 [CarolineB]
- CarolineB has joined #poe
- 12:44:55 [CarolineB]
- present+ CarolineB
- 12:45:08 [phila]
- ivan: It's OK if we have reqs that we end up not covering, but some sort of doc should exist that says why we won't/didn't address it.
- 12:45:17 [phila]
- ... There can be any (genuine) reasons.
- 12:45:30 [phila]
- benws2: But would you include the UCs?
- 12:45:37 [phila]
- ivan: If they're genuine UCs then, yes.
- 12:45:49 [phila]
- ... Maybe in 2 years' time we come back and look at it again.
- 12:46:04 [phila]
- benws2: What about UCs that raise Reqs that are already covered?
- 12:46:30 [phila]
- benws2: If there's a UC on the wiki that we judge to be covered in ODRL
- 12:46:40 [phila]
- benws2: We agreed only to generate Reqs for changes
- 12:47:17 [benws2]
- q?
- 12:47:52 [simonstey]
- +q
- 12:47:58 [phila]
- benws2: ASking in general, am I right not to include UCs that don't generate any new requirements?
- 12:48:00 [phila]
- ack s
- 12:48:01 [michaelS]
- I recall the same
- 12:48:02 [phila]
- q+
- 12:48:33 [michaelS]
- q+
- 12:48:40 [phila]
- simonstey: I'd say there's no point in having a UC that repeats another one's reqs
- 12:49:17 [phila]
- s/I'd say there's no point in having a UC that repeats another one's reqs/I'd say there's value in having a UC that repeats another one's reqs
- 12:49:34 [phila]
- simonstey: The UCs tell you what people want to use ODRL for.
- 12:49:56 [phila]
- ... We don't want to add something to ODRL that isn't required by anyone
- 12:50:28 [phila]
- ack me
- 12:50:56 [Brian_Ulicny]
- Brian_Ulicny has joined #poe
- 12:51:45 [phila]
- phila: IMO the UCR should refer explicitly to the original ODRL UCs and say thaty we're building on top of that.
- 12:52:17 [renato]
- q+
- 12:52:21 [phila]
- michaelS: I think the reqs doc shouldn't include what's alreadty covered, but the wiki can.
- 12:52:49 [phila]
- benws2: In the UCR, should we have UCs that generate no Reqs because they're already covered??
- 12:53:04 [benws2]
- q?
- 12:53:05 [phila]
- ... Were OK with UCs that generate Reqs we're not going to cover
- 12:53:14 [simonstey]
- ack michaelS
- 12:53:20 [phila]
- renato: For example, UC31 on internal rights management
- 12:53:21 [renato]
- trackbot, status
- 12:53:23 [phila]
- ack r
- 12:53:45 [phila]
- renato: We decided last week that it was all implementation specific. So do we remove 31?
- 12:53:51 [Brian_Ulicny]
- present+
- 12:53:53 [phila]
- benws2: I think there are 3 classes of UC
- 12:54:02 [phila]
- ... 1 asking for exsting ODRL functgionality
- 12:54:18 [phila]
- ... 2 asking for guidance that we can link to the BP doc, eg using Prov
- 12:54:33 [phila]
- ... 3 UCs that do generate new Reqs buyt thaty we're not going to cover
- 12:54:41 [phila]
- s/buyt thaty/but that/
- 12:54:54 [phila]
- renato: So 31 is an implementation issue.
- 12:55:16 [phila]
- benws2: If it wont even make the BP doc then I'm not sure that we shoijuld include it - we have nothing to say about it
- 12:55:21 [phila]
- benws2: For the vote...
- 12:55:41 [simonstey]
- no
- 12:55:43 [phila]
- ... Those UCs that generate no new Reqs, should they be in our UCR document?
- 12:56:16 [simonstey]
- +q
- 12:56:23 [phila]
- phila: Emphasises desire for link to old UCs
- 12:56:26 [phila]
- ack s
- 12:57:03 [phila]
- simonstey: My no relates to UCs like the one Renato mentioned which was about implementation issues. I don't think that should be part of the UCR.
- 12:57:43 [phila]
- simonstey: Reqs that were gathered years ago, they need to be part of the UC document, at least by reference.
- 12:57:57 [michaelS]
- q+
- 12:58:04 [phila]
- benws2: That can be in a para t the top. These UCs extend the existing set that drove dev of ODRL
- 12:58:46 [phila]
- PROPOSED: That we don't include use cvses in the UCR Doc that generate no requirements and no guidance.
- 12:58:58 [phila]
- s/cvses/cases
- 12:59:09 [simonstey]
- +1
- 12:59:14 [phila]
- PROPOSED: That we don't include use cases in the UCR Doc that generate no new requirements and no guidance.
- 12:59:28 [ivan]
- +1
- 12:59:29 [Sabrina]
- +1
- 12:59:30 [CarolineB]
- +1
- 12:59:30 [Brian_Ulicny]
- +1
- 12:59:30 [michaelS]
- +1
- 12:59:32 [benws2]
- +1
- 12:59:32 [simonstey]
- -0.9
- 12:59:39 [renato]
- 0.5
- 12:59:48 [smyles]
- 0
- 13:00:17 [phila]
- RESOLUTION: That we don't include use cases in the UCR Doc that generate no new requirements and no guidance.
- 13:00:32 [simonstey]
- old reqs https://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/2.0/v2req.html
- 13:00:52 [phila]
- benws2: Are the editors confident enough to make progress towards a version for publication in December?
- 13:01:09 [phila]
- simonstey: This Q about reqs, those we've rejected, do we keep them in the doc?
- 13:01:26 [phila]
- michaelS: My thinking is that if we don't include the UCs in the UCR, what about using them for a BP doc?
- 13:01:38 [phila]
- ... I think some are interesting and attractive for marketing
- 13:01:43 [simonstey]
- requirements != use cases
- 13:01:53 [phila]
- benws2: I agree. Any UC that generates that kind of thing is good.
- 13:01:59 [phila]
- q?
- 13:02:03 [phila]
- ack m
- 13:02:24 [phila]
- renato: Are we going to close off the UCs?
- 13:02:43 [phila]
- benws2: We could, but I don't feel under pressure to do so.
- 13:02:54 [phila]
- benws2: Can we change it after we've published?
- 13:03:09 [benws2]
- q?
- 13:03:14 [phila]
- ivan: You can publish new versions as often as you like. It's a Note
- 13:03:32 [benws2]
- Q?
- 13:03:33 [phila]
- benws2: So there's no pressure (literally not a euphemism)
- 13:03:59 [phila]
- simonstey: You can change FPWDs at any time and they can be different.
- 13:04:27 [phila]
- benws2: if were sinking under the pressure of new UCs OK, we could close the list, but we're not.
- 13:04:40 [phila]
- renato: The BSIG has got back to us with clarification, We can discuss that next week.
- 13:04:43 [phila]
- Topic: The Model
- 13:05:03 [phila]
- renato: On Complex Constraints... it's 3 weeks since we spoke about that.
- 13:05:20 [phila]
- ... The minutes said we've move the discussion to e-mail. Has there been any new thoughts?
- 13:05:25 [Sabrina]
- q+
- 13:05:53 [simonstey]
- +q
- 13:05:54 [phila]
- benws2: The one that seems most obvious to me is the chaining of constraints but Simon said that's a processing problem.
- 13:06:03 [phila]
- ... Can we design those problems out?
- 13:06:04 [phila]
- q?
- 13:06:09 [phila]
- ack s
- 13:06:55 [phila]
- Sabrina: I sent a mail to the list just before the call. I checked with colleagues about how to describe these using DL. I was told it's outside the scope of OWL 2, as they're linear constraints.
- 13:07:09 [phila]
- ... But pointed to a W3C Note on OWL2 and Linear Constraints
- 13:07:25 [Brian_Ulicny]
- q+
- 13:07:34 [phila]
- ... The semantics and decidability is clear and published. There are existing reasoning engines that will handle it. But it's outside OWL2.
- 13:07:42 [phila]
- ack Sabrina
- 13:07:53 [simonstey]
- q+
- 13:07:59 [phila]
- Brian_Ulicny: What is a linear constraint?
- 13:08:28 [phila]
- Sabrina: Some sort of dependency between two things Think of a less than statement, need to evaluate both.
- 13:08:37 [phila]
- ivan: That Note has never had any continuation.
- 13:08:48 [phila]
- q+ to caution against requiring OWL
- 13:09:22 [phila]
- ivan: I wouldn't go down that line... trying to put it into the OWL 2 framework. We don't have the expertise
- 13:09:23 [phila]
- q-
- 13:09:33 [phila]
- q- Brian_Ulicny
- 13:09:38 [phila]
- ack s
- 13:09:46 [renato]
- q+
- 13:10:09 [phila]
- simonstey: Maybe I want to talk about this at the F2F as I'd need more time to ramble about it. Main question... the role of constraints in ODRL.
- 13:10:36 [phila]
- ... Do we want them automatically evaluated? Or is it just about making them machine readable?
- 13:10:45 [smyles]
- q+
- 13:10:52 [phila]
- simonstey: It could just be a variation on plain text.
- 13:11:03 [phila]
- ... I could talk about this for hours.
- 13:11:31 [phila]
- ... We need to be clear. We could potentially chain constraints for ever.
- 13:11:34 [phila]
- ack r
- 13:12:21 [benws2]
- q?
- 13:12:26 [renato]
- https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#POE.R.DM.02_Define_target_of_a_constraint
- 13:12:27 [phila]
- renato: In an ideal world it would e great if we could design and build such a system but that's more than we can do. I think it's expression and machine readability that we're aiming for.
- 13:12:33 [phila]
- renato: We have another req....
- 13:12:59 [phila]
- renato: We can augment the constraint model so that you can specify the target of the constraint.
- 13:13:16 [phila]
- ... We can say that the target of the constraint is another constraint.
- 13:13:37 [benws2]
- q?
- 13:13:42 [phila]
- ack sm
- 13:14:03 [phila]
- smyles: In order for us to help people implement machine readable rights, we do need to document the processing model.
- 13:14:11 [phila]
- ... We tried to do this in RightsML
- 13:14:40 [benws2]
- q?
- 13:14:44 [phila]
- ... If we don't document the processing model, then we're just codifying natural language. We could stop there, but it would be useful to go further
- 13:14:45 [phila]
- q+
- 13:15:17 [phila]
- ack me
- 13:15:19 [ivan]
- +1 to Phil
- 13:15:26 [renato]
- +10000
- 13:15:46 [phila]
- phila: You can have a processing model but that entails independent software to implement it, test suite etc.
- 13:16:04 [phila]
- renato: We can have a model where a constraint has another constraint. That's easy in the model.
- 13:16:30 [phila]
- ... We could do that soon and then the WG can see what the outcome is.
- 13:16:41 [phila]
- Topic: Extended Relations
- 13:17:04 [phila]
- renato: qI wasn't clear on the state of req DM10. Are we waiting for more explicit use cases?
- 13:17:11 [phila]
- benws2: For XOR, I can generate loads of use cases.
- 13:17:24 [phila]
- renato: Can you send some in
- 13:17:25 [phila]
- benws2: Yes
- 13:17:43 [phila]
- action: benws2 to submit use cases about extended relations
- 13:17:43 [trackbot]
- Error finding 'benws2'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/users>.
- 13:17:49 [phila]
- action: benws to submit use cases about extended relations
- 13:17:49 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-36 - Submit use cases about extended relations [on Benedict Whittam Smith - due 2016-11-14].
- 13:18:19 [phila]
- Topic: Vocabulary
- 13:18:43 [phila]
- renato: Simon raised the issue about removing terms that came from a long time ago.
- 13:18:53 [phila]
- ... They may not make a lot of sense today.
- 13:19:05 [phila]
- ... We had a discussion at TPAC about normative and non-normative terms
- 13:19:12 [phila]
- ... Normative means implementations
- 13:19:23 [simonstey]
- victor raised that issue a year ago too -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-odrl/2015Apr/0024.html
- 13:19:28 [phila]
- ... The question we face is... do we solve those together
- 13:19:29 [michaelS]
- q+
- 13:19:47 [phila]
- renato: We can say we think these terms are normative, non-normative, at risk etc.
- 13:19:52 [phila]
- ack m
- 13:20:07 [phila]
- michaelS: What makes a term normative? What is the distinction.
- 13:20:23 [simonstey]
- +q
- 13:20:36 [phila]
- renato: If you have a section in a spec that is normative, you need multiple implementaions
- 13:20:39 [phila]
- ack s
- 13:20:55 [phila]
- simonstey: I put a link in - Victor raised this a long time ago.
- 13:21:14 [phila]
- ... The core issue of this issue is why certain terms are in ODRL.
- 13:21:18 [renato]
- "I love ODRL and the ODRL core model" - thanks Victor ;-)
- 13:21:54 [phila]
- simonstey: Why can't we have all those terms? Because there are too many.
- 13:22:25 [phila]
- simonstey: We can have the general concept of an Action, in the core, and then people can extend with what they want like 'accept tracking' etc.
- 13:22:40 [benws2]
- q?
- 13:22:40 [phila]
- simonstey: Not best to have them in the core
- 13:23:05 [phila]
- benws2: We have to go through a process of splitting terms into normative and non-normative
- 13:23:15 [phila]
- ... What were you suggesting as a process?
- 13:23:29 [phila]
- renato: Other people need to look at the terms rather than me as I'm too martied to it.
- 13:23:42 [phila]
- ... Especially the names for constraints.
- 13:24:00 [phila]
- ... Check them off as at risk terms, like 'inStore' might be too outdated
- 13:24:02 [phila]
- q+
- 13:24:28 [phila]
- ack me
- 13:25:16 [simonstey]
- +1 to phila's proposal
- 13:25:36 [simonstey]
- +1
- 13:25:39 [simonstey]
- +q
- 13:25:47 [phila]
- phila: Enumerations = obscelence
- 13:25:59 [smyles]
- obsolescence
- 13:26:03 [phila]
- simonstey: That's my point (what Phil said)
- 13:26:55 [phila]
- simonstey: As actions are used in ODRL, even if there are 20 ways to say print, there is no problem with having new ones. You don't gain by having them normative.
- 13:27:10 [phila]
- s/obscelence/obsolescence/
- 13:27:18 [benws2]
- q?
- 13:27:42 [phila]
- renato: Why don't we say that all the terms from the info model are normative and the rest, not normative?
- 13:28:07 [phila]
- simonstey: Some terms are there nbevcause some time ago the right person asked the right person.
- 13:28:33 [phila]
- q+ to talk about the CG
- 13:28:37 [phila]
- ack s
- 13:28:46 [michaelS]
- q+
- 13:28:57 [phila]
- simonstey: Talks about managing narrower and broader terms
- 13:29:03 [phila]
- ack me
- 13:29:03 [Zakim]
- phila, you wanted to talk about the CG
- 13:29:25 [phila]
- ack michaelS
- 13:29:41 [ivan]
- q+
- 13:29:43 [phila]
- michaelS: From IPTC experience, interop is a problem if you open up fully.
- 13:29:59 [phila]
- benws2: But isn't that the role of the news industry to provide the terms.
- 13:30:16 [simonstey]
- +1
- 13:30:18 [simonstey]
- +q
- 13:30:21 [phila]
- michaelS: Sure we can do that for RightsML, but if a news term should be used for a text book? They have different action defn.
- 13:30:27 [phila]
- ack i
- 13:30:39 [phila]
- ivan: The annotation WG had a similar issue for what we called Motiviations
- 13:30:40 [ivan]
- http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/vocab/wd/#extending-motivations
- 13:31:04 [phila]
- ... We added into the doc, a non-normative guideline on extending. You should do it this way etc.
- 13:31:08 [benws2]
- q?
- 13:31:16 [phila]
- ... We defined some of the top level ones and then how to add your own.
- 13:31:17 [phila]
- ack s
- 13:31:27 [phila]
- simonstey: That's what I imagined too.
- 13:31:58 [phila]
- ... To respond to Michael - things not being in line, if we have the concept of a profile, you can't stop people defining their own profile.
- 13:32:05 [phila]
- ... People will do what they will do.
- 13:32:13 [phila]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 13:32:13 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/07-poe-minutes.html phila
- 13:32:23 [phila]
- Topic: F2F
- 13:32:47 [phila]
- renato: We have got 2 options: Madrid (Victor has offered)
- 13:32:57 [phila]
- ... And offer 2 is New York
- 13:33:08 [phila]
- ... Monegraph would be happy to host that.
- 13:33:31 [phila]
- ... So the question now is what's the decision.
- 13:33:42 [phila]
- ... For March
- 13:34:30 [Sabrina]
- not necessarily.... NY is great
- 13:34:48 [victor]
- victor has joined #poe
- 13:34:53 [victor]
- present+ victor
- 13:35:08 [phila]
- action: phila to set up WBS to help decide F2F venue
- 13:35:09 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-37 - Set up wbs to help decide f2f venue [on Phil Archer - due 2016-11-14].
- 13:35:39 [victor]
- (oh! I am afraid I arrived in the last minute...)
- 13:35:47 [phila]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 13:35:47 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/07-poe-minutes.html phila
- 13:35:52 [victor]
- (I got confused with the timezones again)
- 14:47:58 [benws]
- benws has joined #poe
- 14:52:05 [benws2]
- benws2 has joined #poe
- 15:33:25 [ivan]
- ivan has joined #poe
- 16:01:39 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #poe
- 16:20:05 [benws]
- benws has joined #poe
- 16:23:52 [benws2]
- benws2 has joined #poe
- 17:20:14 [benws]
- benws has joined #poe
- 17:49:17 [benws2]
- benws2 has joined #poe
- 17:52:50 [benws3]
- benws3 has joined #poe
- 17:53:55 [ivan]
- ivan has joined #poe