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