12:06:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:06:17 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/21-poe-irc
12:06:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:06:19 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:06:21 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
12:06:21 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:06:22 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:06:22 <trackbot> Date: 21 November 2016
12:06:26 <renato> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:06:42 <renato> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161121
12:06:51 <renato> present+ renato
12:06:55 <renato> chair: ben
12:07:05 <renato> Regrets: Phil, Sabrina, Ivan, Caroline
12:13:54 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #poe
12:28:40 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
12:29:31 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
12:31:51 <benws1119> present+
12:34:03 <smyles> smyles has joined #poe
12:34:46 <simonstey> zakim, who's here?
12:34:46 <Zakim> Present: renato, benws
12:34:48 <Zakim> On IRC I see smyles, michaelS, simonstey, Zakim, RRSAgent, renato, benws1119, trackbot
12:34:52 <simonstey> present+
12:35:04 <smyles> present+
12:35:07 <Brian_Ulicny> Brian_Ulicny has joined #poe
12:35:17 <michaelS> present+
12:36:03 <Brian_Ulicny> present+
12:36:20 <simonstey> scribe: simonstey
12:36:52 <simonstey> chair: benws
12:36:57 <Brian_Ulicny> Can someone post the Webex link
12:37:06 <simonstey> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161121
12:37:07 <renato> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m26bd8696de908ff6bd04482e85fa34e7
12:37:18 <victor> victor has joined #poe
12:37:22 <renato> OR ;-)
12:37:22 <simonstey> topic: admin
12:37:32 <victor> present+ victor
12:38:15 <simonstey> benws1119: approval of last week's minutes
12:39:45 <renato> UCR Editors Draft: http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/
12:41:33 <simonstey> topic: ucr
12:41:45 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Constraints
12:42:11 <simonstey> simonstey: missing links between ucs & reqs; played around with Ivan's script and got it to work
12:42:18 <simonstey> ... will continue working on that
12:42:21 <simonstey> topic: constraints
12:42:49 <simonstey> michaelS: Victor and I started to work on a wiki page
12:43:02 <simonstey> ... victor is the "green guy"
12:43:35 <simonstey> ... there is a link to a second page where i've rewritten some definitions
12:44:28 <smyles> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGlBEpRgi60WyNnHLCfMuXlnTV1zzpoRz8DakIiOcP0/edit#heading=h.ai7fbfrg2s0a
12:44:53 <simonstey> ... leftoperand & rightoperand, where the leftoperand is the more "flexible" representation
12:45:33 <simonstey> second page: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Constraints_in_the_Information_Model
12:46:03 <smyles> q+
12:46:38 <simonstey> renato: what do you mean with "defining how a value must be retrieved"?
12:46:53 <simonstey> michaelS: what has to be measured in this constraint
12:47:27 <simonstey> ... it's about having a very clear definition of what the constraint is about
12:47:36 <victor> q+
12:47:40 <simonstey> ... less room for interpretation
12:48:14 <simonstey> smyles: I have a similar point -> for each constraint operator, where do you get the values from?
12:48:36 <simonstey> ... and we have to distinguish between duty constraints and "normal" constraints
12:48:41 <michaelS> q+
12:48:52 <smyles> q-
12:48:56 <simonstey> victor: either you leave this undefined
12:49:11 <renato> q+
12:49:39 <simonstey> ... you also want do define some additional information for each constraint, right?
12:49:48 <simonstey> ... e.g. domain/range of properties?
12:49:57 <benws1119> q?
12:50:01 <simonstey> michaelS: maybe.. there are some pros & cons for that
12:50:04 <simonstey> ack victor
12:50:08 <simonstey> ack michaelS
12:50:13 <victor> (I am referring to my fourth comment at the bottom of https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Constraints)
12:50:46 <simonstey> michaelS: I think this could be solved in two ways.. either as ben said
12:50:57 <simonstey> ... defining it in the free text
12:51:16 <simonstey> ... or using "anonymized" properties
12:51:18 <victor> q-
12:51:47 <simonstey> ... e.g. "value is found at property1"
12:52:17 <simonstey> renato: we should define domain/range, as long its valid for all uses of that constraint
12:52:41 <simonstey> ... do you want to split "absolutposition" into multiple constraints michael?
12:52:44 <simonstey> michaelS: yes
12:52:50 <simonstey> ... maybe even more!
12:53:04 <simonstey> ack renato
12:53:20 <simonstey> renato: also regarding "language"
12:53:37 <simonstey> ... what do you mean with before and after?
12:53:49 <simonstey> michaelS: when the constraint should be evaluated
12:54:29 <simonstey> ... either before an action is performed or afterwards
12:54:36 <benws1119> q?
12:55:06 <victor> (are the new ones truly supported by Use Cases?)
12:55:15 <simonstey> renato: so you are proposing to deprecate some of those constraints an only use the new ones?
12:55:45 <smyles> q+
12:55:53 <simonstey> ... the other option would be to clean up the definition of some of those things
12:56:22 <simonstey> michaelS: well.. depends on the users of such constraints
12:57:07 <simonstey> smyles: could we try (right now) to define one of those constraints more precisely
12:57:33 <simonstey> ... i.e. taking one of those we think isn't defined precise enough
12:57:53 <simonstey> ... and following all way through
12:59:04 <simonstey> michaelS: lets try "spatial"
12:59:26 <simonstey> ... "A code representing a geospatial area." -> what does that mean?
13:00:08 <simonstey> ... it should refer to the area respective action is exercised in
13:00:16 <smyles> q+
13:00:19 <simonstey> ... but how to measure that?
13:01:08 <simonstey> ... kind of difficult, so lets break it down into more simpler terms
13:01:23 <benws1119> q?
13:01:23 <simonstey> ... e.g. name of country or alike
13:01:48 <renato> q+
13:02:06 <simonstey> ... so I came up with "namedGeoArea"
13:02:38 <benws1119> q+
13:02:42 <simonstey> smyles: this is actually a very common type of restriction
13:03:04 <simonstey> ... 1) how the AP currently deals with geographic restrictions
13:03:30 <simonstey> ... some of the restrictions are country based, but most are city and/or region based
13:03:48 <simonstey> ... "my competitor across town cannot use this"
13:04:11 <simonstey> ... we deal with those restrictions, by assigning a geography to each recipient
13:04:33 <benws1119> q?
13:04:45 <simonstey> ... we make a decision upfront
13:04:49 <simonstey> ack smyles
13:05:10 <simonstey> smyles: what I did was, to built a geography hierarchy
13:05:47 <Brian_Ulicny> q+
13:05:58 <simonstey> ... so you would have to say "in paris -> france -> europe.."
13:06:02 <simonstey> ack renato
13:06:28 <simonstey> renato: could you use a getty thes. for that hierarchy?
13:06:45 <simonstey> smyles: AP has both an editorial & business hierarchy
13:07:43 <simonstey> renato: my question is: how far do we want to go wrt. supporting implementations?
13:08:45 <simonstey> ... using conditions as some form of machine readable representation
13:09:19 <simonstey> ... or having all of them also automatically verifyable
13:10:35 <simonstey> ... for some constraints we can't know how the community will interpret them
13:11:08 <victor> +1
13:11:28 <simonstey> benws1119: there are two streams: 1) we have to increase precision thus include more and more constraints
13:12:04 <simonstey> ... 2) do the opposite and leave most of those constraints for profiles
13:12:17 <michaelS> q+
13:12:17 <benws1119>  q?
13:12:21 <simonstey> ... some of those are very domain specific
13:12:24 <simonstey> ack benws1119
13:12:41 <simonstey> Brian_Ulicny: we use geonames a lot in our group
13:12:44 <benws1119> q-
13:12:44 <victor> (we also use and love geonames
13:12:47 <victor> )
13:13:39 <michaelS> q-
13:13:43 <smyles> q+
13:13:44 <simonstey> ... we also need to be able to say "this is constrained to western europe and by western europe we mean the union of "...""
13:13:53 <simonstey> ack Brian_Ulicny
13:16:20 <simonstey> smyles: one way forward is to say: here is the def. of what we mean with geospatial
13:16:33 <simonstey> ... and those are the different choices of implementing this
13:16:42 <benws1119> q?
13:16:59 <victor> useful discussion? Yes but... which are the conclusions?
13:17:08 <simonstey> ack smyles
13:17:10 <simonstey> topic: upcoming f2f
13:18:39 <simonstey> renato: [explaining his email regarding constraints on constraints]
13:20:15 <benws1119> q?
13:20:49 <simonstey> ... will send an update of the example around
13:21:02 <simonstey> benws1119: we have a virtual f2f coming up soon
13:21:37 <simonstey> renato: depends on our deliverables
13:22:14 <simonstey> ... the week after the VF2F we should publish the 3 documents we have for now
13:22:31 <simonstey> benws1119: what about progress on constraints?
13:22:33 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues
13:23:11 <simonstey> renato: yes, we should focus on open issues
13:23:20 <victor> +1
13:23:36 <simonstey> benws1119: maybe we should agree on a set of decisions we want to make at the meeting
13:24:01 <simonstey> renato: probably constraints on constraints/assets/...
13:24:05 <smyles> also constraints on duties
13:24:55 <benws1119> q?
13:25:04 <simonstey> renato: if we aim to get constraints fixed/updated
13:25:43 <simonstey> yes
13:26:14 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/87755/F2F-2-prefs/results
13:26:42 <simonstey> [trying to interpret the results]
13:27:36 <simonstey> renato: seems like there's a slight tendency towards europe
13:28:54 <michaelS> present -
13:28:55 <simonstey> rrsagent, generate minutes
13:28:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/21-poe-minutes.html simonstey
14:10:40 <ivan> ivan has joined #poe
15:37:12 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe