See also: IRC log
<benws> Hi Renato - what's the pw?
<renato> webexpoe
<benws> Thanks
<scribe> scribe: simonstey
<scribe> chair: benws
benws: approval of last week's
minutes
... hearing no objections
... accepted
benws: let's start with an easy one
https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/204
scribe: I made a comment
regarding inheriting status property
... but since we disallow that anyway
simonstey: explaining the rationale behind it
benws: shall we take a vote?
PROPSAL: accept simonstey's proposal https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/204
RESOLUTION: accept simonstey's proposal to remove inheritallowed and allow multi-inheritance
michaelS: https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/206
... I feel atomic/compound constraints are exactly defined like
one would define subclasses
but they currently aren
scribe: but they currently aren't
benws: I met a number of
instances where a set of constraints were connected with
ORs
... I'm proposing that left/rightoperand are subclasses of
operand and allow an arbitrary number of those operands in
compound constraints
https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#core-components-logical
+q
odrl: or (:c1 :c2 :c3)
... constraint [
... or (....)
]
odrl: constraints [
... leftOp
... operator odrl:eq
... rightOp .. ]
(:c1 :c2 :c3)
simonstey: [giving examples]
benws: what about
andsequence?
... we could have them as atomic constraints
michaelS: but rightoperands can't
be resources
... the current spec says literal
benws: well that's over restrictive
<michaelS> simonstey: suggested to open up the rightOperand to more than just literal values
simonstey: if you restrict rightoperands to literals, having a URI as value is basically nothing more than a string
benws: shall we subclass them?
simonstey: [discussing differences of contraint types]
benws: we should raise 2 issues;
one for clarifying the range of rightoperands
... one for the compound constraints
benws: we have two issues here,
1. what duties on a policy level mean
... 2. policy conflicts & duties
<Sabrina> we would need - consequences
Sabrina: I always found it
strange that duties were so tightly coupled to
permissions
... if you have a regulation, there are not really any
permissions
... you have obligations that you have to fulfill
... and there are consequences if you don't do that
https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2-1/#section-5#
renato: but is it as simple as adding a new property to duties?
Sabrina: well.. hasConsequence
yes
... but remedy not
... you can't just pick either or
benws: what are your thoughts on
representing regulations with ODRL sabrina/simon?
... what about moving it to a profile?
Sabrina: meh
<Sabrina> simonstey: I don't think it is such a big deal - we just need to add duties to the policies
benws: renato & michaelS are you comf. with giving 2 weeks time for coming up with a reasonable explain. for that?
renato: this group really has to
finish this year
... we don't have many implementors
... if we don't meet the dec. deadline, we might get into
trouble
benws: if we could have a proposal in 2 weeks time, we can consider having it
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Present: renato michaelS benws simonstey Sabrina WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Ivan) Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ +Caroline Regrets: +Caroline Found Scribe: simonstey Inferring ScribeNick: simonstey Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170703 Found Date: 03 Jul 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/07/03-poe-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]