12:10:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:10:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/07/17-poe-irc
12:10:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:10:21 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:10:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
12:10:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:10:24 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:10:24 <trackbot> Date: 17 July 2017
12:10:30 <renato> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:10:38 <renato> RRSAgent, draft minutes V2
12:10:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/17-poe-minutes.html renato
12:10:54 <renato> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170717
12:10:58 <renato> present+
12:11:08 <renato> Chair: Ben
12:30:21 <CarolineB> CarolineB has joined #poe
12:30:52 <victor> victor has joined #poe
12:32:05 <benws> benws has joined #poe
12:32:19 <benws> present+
12:32:20 <MichaelS> MichaelS has joined #poe
12:32:40 <test> test has joined #poe
12:33:02 <Sabrina> Sabrina has joined #poe
12:33:16 <victor> Hi! I do not remember which was the password for the webex. would anybody be so kind of remembering me that?
12:33:22 <Sabrina> present+ sabrina
12:33:56 <Linda> Linda has joined #POE
12:34:38 <renato> victor - just emailed to you!
12:36:30 <CarolineB> present+ CarolineB
12:36:54 <renato> present+ Linda
12:37:03 <CarolineB> Resolution: Accept last weeks minutes
12:37:12 <victor> present+ victor
12:37:40 <MichaelS> Present+
12:37:44 <CarolineB> Topic: Consequences proposal
12:38:19 <Sabrina>  In the GDPR consequences are defined in Article 83:  4. Infringements of the following provisions shall, in accordance with paragraph 2, be subject to administrative fines up to 10 000 000 EUR, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 2 % of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher: (a) the obligations of the controller and the processor pursuant to Articles 8, 11, 25 to 39 and 42 and 43; .....  5.Infringements[CUT]
12:38:44 <Sabrina> following provisions shall, in accordance with paragraph 2, be subject to administrative fines up to 20 000 000 EUR, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 4 % of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher: (a) the basic principles for processing, including conditions for consent, pursuant to Articles 5, 6, 7 and 9; ......
12:41:23 <CarolineB> sabrina: we will have rules with obligations. We need consequences tied to articles one by one
12:42:18 <CarolineB> ... obligations/duties should be at the same level as permissions
12:42:28 <renato> See: https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/191
12:43:00 <CarolineB> ... benws: we need a proposal that we can accept - by Wedensday?
12:43:33 <CarolineB> sabrina: We need to give you a justification. Do we need it?
12:43:58 <CarolineB> benws: if we keep ODRL to model licences, then we may not need it
12:44:06 <renato> q+
12:44:36 <CarolineB> sabrina: I am looking at data protection, simon is looking at licences
12:45:00 <victor> q+
12:45:39 <CarolineB> renato: trying to work out what we need to add to the model. Consequence/remedy a proerty of duty
12:45:41 <victor> q-
12:46:17 <CarolineB> sabrina: simon and I need to discuss. looking for the simplest solution
12:46:35 <CarolineB> benws: introduce an obligation at the rule level?
12:46:50 <victor> q-
12:47:17 <CarolineB> sabrina: we see duty and obligation sameAs
12:47:57 <CarolineB> renato: current proposal is duty can be expressed at policy level.
12:48:29 <CarolineB> ... policy will have an obligation which will point to a duty. Get no return for it
12:48:59 <benws> q?
12:49:04 <benws> ach re
12:49:08 <benws> ack r
12:50:51 <CarolineB> sabrina: we'd define obligation as a class
12:50:58 <victor> q+
12:51:23 <CarolineB> ... victor: is there a use case for this feature?
12:51:38 <CarolineB> sabrina: have put the GDPR as one
12:52:35 <CarolineB> ... our proposal will try and fit our needs in the simplest way. ODRL originally for licences but we want it to cover regulations too
12:52:52 <CarolineB> benws: we have time restrictions. We need a formal proposal asap
12:54:10 <CarolineB> Topic: GitHub Issues
12:54:28 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/210
12:54:52 <benws> q?
12:54:57 <benws> ack v
12:54:59 <CarolineB> TOpic: Role of the ODRL Common Vocabulary and of Profiles
12:55:56 <CarolineB> michaelS: what is role of common vocabulary in ODRL world?
12:56:21 <CarolineB> ... we have a core model and then a profile (when more terms are needed)
12:56:52 <CarolineB> ... is it required there are only two ways to express a policy. 1 by core vocab, 2. plus profile
12:57:17 <CarolineB> ... is there a third way - core vocab + something undefined?
12:58:14 <benws> q?
12:58:46 <CarolineB> ... my usggestion is to have a strict rule to say it can only be 1 and 2. IM with optionally terms from a profile
12:59:19 <CarolineB> s/usggestion/suggestion
13:00:02 <CarolineB> benws: core profile is minimal
13:00:37 <CarolineB> ... should we say use a profile + common terms?
13:00:50 <benws> q?
13:01:33 <CarolineB> Typo - core profile is minimal should be core model is minimal
13:02:36 <CarolineB> renato: e.g. music video. I will create a suitable profile, but people may not understand the terms
13:04:24 <benws> q?
13:04:42 <CarolineB> michaelS: a processor that says it supports a profile must be able to understand all the terms of the profile
13:05:10 <CarolineB> benws: is this a principle?
13:06:54 <CarolineB> benwsl: If a processor publishes that it understands certain profiles then it cannot be tested if terms are used that are not in the prodile
13:07:25 <CarolineB> s/prodile/profile
13:08:21 <CarolineB> renato: could the processor declare it understand certain terms (not defined by profile)
13:08:55 <CarolineB> linda: it might not be able to understand all of a conplex profile
13:09:59 <CarolineB> benws: profile supports interoperability
13:11:38 <CarolineB> renato: now its about what does it mean to understand. can we mot imagine a processor that just displays actions. It doesn't have to nderstnad the actions itself
13:11:59 <CarolineB> s/nderstnad/understand
13:12:51 <CarolineB> benws: if a processor does not understand the common vocab then it cannot evaluate terms
13:15:08 <MichaelS> MichaelS has joined #poe
13:15:13 <benws> q?
13:15:35 <CarolineB> renato: so we assume, without a profile, you are only using the core terms
13:15:52 <CarolineB> ... and if you have the profile in your policy does the policy become invalid?
13:16:11 <CarolineB> benws: its the processor whcih would provide dodgy results
13:16:26 <renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#profile-core
13:16:35 <CarolineB> s/whcih/which
13:17:52 <CarolineB> benws: the problem is not with the policy itself its to do with the processor evaluating the policy
13:18:16 <benws> q?
13:19:06 <CarolineB> michaelS: its like - someone writing a text in different languages assumes the reader can understand. If you don't understandits not invalid, its not usable
13:19:58 <CarolineB> linda: this is critical if a processor is going to work
13:20:44 <CarolineB> .. how can they publish what they can understand accurately
13:21:40 <CarolineB> ... perhaps declare whatit can understand within a profile?
13:27:19 <CarolineB> caroline: isnt it reasonable to say an evaluator shodu understand a whoel profile, or the licence may not be fully transmitted
13:27:44 <CarolineB> renato: but we do need to encourage implementers
13:27:52 <benws> q?
13:28:17 <CarolineB> michaelS: should a processor just be able to understand the common model?
13:28:51 <CarolineB> benws: actually the standard only needs to say a processor should implement the core model. Profiles are beyond W3C
13:30:01 <CarolineB> renato: can an evaluator also be a human
13:30:36 <renato> RRSAgent, make logs public V2
13:31:09 <renato> RRSAgent, draft minutes V2
13:31:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/17-poe-minutes.html renato