IRC log of poe on 2017-09-11
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 11:57:37 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #poe
- 11:57:37 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-poe-irc
- 11:57:39 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 11:57:39 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #poe
- 11:57:41 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
- 11:57:41 [trackbot]
- Date: 11 September 2017
- 11:57:58 [ivan]
- Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170911
- 11:58:11 [ivan]
- ivan has changed the topic to: agenda 2017-09-11: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170911
- 11:58:18 [ivan]
- Chair: Renato
- 11:58:34 [ivan]
- Regrets: Sabrina, Serena
- 12:20:27 [LindaB]
- LindaB has joined #poe
- 12:20:40 [LindaB]
- present+
- 12:23:12 [renato]
- renato has joined #poe
- 12:27:39 [ivan]
- present+
- 12:28:16 [victor]
- victor has joined #poe
- 12:29:08 [renato]
- present+
- 12:30:04 [ivan]
- present+ MichaelS
- 12:30:09 [michaelS]
- michaelS has joined #poe
- 12:30:34 [victor]
- present+
- 12:30:36 [victor]
- hi!
- 12:32:19 [renato]
- Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170911
- 12:32:27 [renato]
- Chair: renato
- 12:33:38 [benws_]
- benws_ has joined #poe
- 12:33:54 [benws_]
- present+
- 12:33:58 [michaelS]
- present+
- 12:34:10 [renato]
- Regrets: Sabrina, Serena, Simon
- 12:35:43 [victor]
- i can scribe
- 12:35:48 [victor]
- scribe: victor
- 12:36:03 [renato]
- https://www.w3.org/2017/09/04-poe-minutes
- 12:36:06 [victor]
- topic: Approve last meeting's minutes
- 12:36:21 [michaelS]
- scribenick: victor
- 12:36:30 [victor]
- resolution: approve last meeting's minutes
- 12:36:55 [victor]
- topic: Vote on Editors Drafts for Candidate Recommendation
- 12:37:28 [renato]
- https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#rule-process
- 12:37:44 [victor]
- renato: the hottest issue is the processing rule section
- 12:38:04 [victor]
- renato: ben has been proposing tables (or truth tables) with in-out
- 12:38:09 [CarolineB]
- CarolineB has joined #poe
- 12:38:17 [ivan]
- present+ caroline
- 12:38:59 [victor]
- renato: the meaning of "active non active" has been discussed
- 12:39:18 [victor]
- renato: ...specially in the context of permissions prohibitions and obligations
- 12:40:00 [victor]
- michaelS: I have responded to Ben's comments on Friday, no further counter-answer
- 12:40:29 [victor]
- https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/254
- 12:41:33 [renato]
- https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Evaluator
- 12:42:39 [victor]
- renato: I have some problem with reading the evaluator table, as I dont understand specially the outcome of the evaluation
- 12:43:02 [victor]
- benws_: the goal is to get the state (active/non-active)
- 12:43:32 [victor]
- renato: what is the meaning of "an active rule"?
- 12:43:43 [victor]
- benws_: active permission is I can exercise it
- 12:44:05 [victor]
- benws_: active prohibition is that I am bound to obey that; obligation the same
- 12:45:21 [victor]
- michaelS: (about example 22)
- 12:45:59 [victor]
- ...michaelS: I have heard different versions in different calls about this example
- 12:47:15 [victor]
- benws_: there is a distinction betweens root-level duties and refinements on rules
- 12:47:54 [victor]
- michaelS: I think have we have the same opinion, I understood it differently in the last call
- 12:48:39 [victor]
- benws_: constraints in a rule define whether it is active or not, but refinements only "help to".
- 12:48:52 [victor]
- renato: the truth table needs narrative text
- 12:49:41 [victor]
- benws_: I think we should limit to the test cases, not give further info to implementors
- 12:50:21 [michaelS]
- q+
- 12:50:22 [victor]
- benws_: Our message to the implementors is: read the im, do the implementation, and pass the tests
- 12:50:48 [victor]
- renato: do you mean we dont need to speak about rule processing?
- 12:50:57 [victor]
- benws_: that's it. that section is not needed.
- 12:51:19 [michaelS]
- q-
- 12:52:10 [ivan]
- q+
- 12:52:12 [victor]
- michaelS: We have working long on the Section 2.6.8
- 12:52:33 [victor]
- michaelS: the section has been discussed on github, not finding opposition
- 12:53:23 [victor]
- michaelS: The spec says "an action may include a refinement" but the impact itself on the refinement is not explicitly given
- 12:53:31 [victor]
- michaelS: so the truth tables are going too far
- 12:54:05 [victor]
- benws_: but without the tables, there is no interoperability
- 12:54:13 [victor]
- q+
- 12:54:46 [victor]
- ivan: this is the 4th meeting we have on this. my impression is that there is no consensus in the WG.
- 12:55:17 [victor]
- ivan: and given that we are in the last minute, we are should take out whatever is conflictive
- 12:55:25 [benws_]
- q+
- 12:55:37 [ivan]
- ack ivan
- 12:55:52 [victor]
- q-
- 12:55:54 [ivan]
- ack victor
- 12:56:06 [ivan]
- q+
- 12:56:11 [ivan]
- ack benws_
- 12:56:40 [victor]
- benws_: ...but if we have disagreement in that section, then we don't have guidedance enough
- 12:56:56 [victor]
- benws_: I would to have agreement in the tables
- 12:57:12 [victor]
- benws_: because this is a warranty for interoperability
- 12:57:36 [victor]
- benws_: we need to define "what is a correct implementation"
- 12:57:45 [renato]
- q?
- 12:58:22 [victor]
- ivan: we have a vocabulary supported by the semantics of RDF. This is an RDF vocabulary
- 12:58:29 [benws_]
- q+
- 12:58:39 [victor]
- ivan: do we want to have additional semantics to what RDF gives me? and if yes, what is?
- 12:58:47 [ivan]
- ack ivan
- 12:59:06 [victor]
- renato: example?
- 12:59:31 [benws_]
- ack b
- 12:59:31 [victor]
- renato: "the IM is the semantics"
- 13:00:02 [victor]
- renato: we may remove 2.6.a, putting back some sentences taken from other sections in the spec
- 13:01:36 [ivan]
- q+
- 13:01:42 [renato]
- q?
- 13:01:46 [victor]
- q+
- 13:02:18 [ivan]
- q-
- 13:04:38 [victor]
- renato: what does it mean "a prohibition" is not active?
- 13:04:46 [victor]
- benws_: that nobody is bound by that prohibition.
- 13:05:33 [victor]
- benws_: example of temporal restriction: the prohibition is active on Tuesday, but not on Wednesday
- 13:05:55 [victor]
- renato: so it means "only applies on a Tuesday"?
- 13:06:23 [victor]
- michaelS: if you violate the prohibition, you have a remedy to fulfill. And then is when the conflict appears.
- 13:06:38 [victor]
- benws_: if the disagreement is only this small case, we can go further.
- 13:06:51 [victor]
- benws_: but if we have further disagreement, then we cannot go to CR
- 13:07:01 [victor]
- victor: I agree with the tables
- 13:07:47 [victor]
- q-
- 13:08:00 [victor]
- renato: i have troubles with the terms themselves
- 13:08:41 [victor]
- ivan: do we have a plan?
- 13:08:41 [CarolineB]
- q+
- 13:09:21 [victor]
- CarolineB: active=should be processed, otherwise=can be ignored
- 13:09:24 [victor]
- ?
- 13:09:30 [victor]
- benws_: yes
- 13:10:03 [victor]
- CarolineB: why dont we choose another word instead of "active/not active"? (just as binary of that, but with other words)
- 13:10:18 [victor]
- benws_: the previous effort was "in effect / not in effect"
- 13:11:10 [victor]
- michaelS: Complexity arises from constraints being fullfilled/non-fulfilled, which is a sort of active/non-active state too
- 13:11:37 [victor]
- benws_: which is the target audience?
- 13:11:45 [victor]
- CarolineB: it is me
- 13:11:50 [victor]
- benws_: no! the implementors
- 13:11:51 [LindaB]
- q+
- 13:11:58 [victor]
- CarolineB: but I'll speak to developers
- 13:12:09 [ivan]
- ack CarolineB
- 13:12:11 [victor]
- benws_: implementors = developers
- 13:12:12 [CarolineB]
- q-
- 13:12:48 [ivan]
- q+
- 13:13:11 [victor]
- q+
- 13:13:28 [renato]
- ack LindaB
- 13:13:36 [ivan]
- ack LindaB
- 13:13:49 [victor]
- LindaB: policy makers must understand the documents and speak to developers
- 13:14:03 [michaelS]
- q+
- 13:14:15 [CarolineB]
- q+
- 13:14:24 [renato]
- ack ivan
- 13:14:35 [victor]
- ivan: is the spec correct or no?
- 13:14:51 [victor]
- ivan: do the truth tables reflect what there is in IM?
- 13:15:16 [victor]
- ivan: we have 4 months to write a Primer to describe a more human readable text
- 13:15:33 [victor]
- ivan: are we in the state of going to IM?
- 13:16:00 [ivan]
- ack victor
- 13:16:01 [victor]
- ivan: I do not care about the terms (this can be discussed later) but I care
- 13:16:18 [victor]
- https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Validation#Normalization
- 13:17:55 [ivan]
- q+
- 13:18:03 [ivan]
- ack michaelS
- 13:18:08 [victor]
- victor: the 75 policy examples in http://odrlapi.appspot.com/ are very useful
- 13:18:08 [renato]
- ack michaelS
- 13:18:17 [benws_]
- q+
- 13:18:23 [victor]
- CarolineB:
- 13:18:54 [victor]
- CarolineB: is there agreement on the IM ?
- 13:19:05 [victor]
- benws_: We only fight on example 24
- 13:19:09 [renato]
- ack CarolineB
- 13:19:51 [CarolineB]
- q-
- 13:19:53 [benws_]
- ack b
- 13:20:07 [victor]
- CarolineB: permitted/non-permitted as the equivalent to active non-active in Permissions.
- 13:20:24 [victor]
- ivan: editorial changes are possible but not recommended if we go further with the process
- 13:20:25 [michaelS]
- q+
- 13:21:03 [renato]
- ack ivan
- 13:21:07 [victor]
- ivan: the reading of some specs is incredibly complex, and they can be supplemented by Primers (but we should avoid that if possible)
- 13:21:39 [victor]
- ivan: benws_ said "example 24 is a small issue" but I see too many issues in the github
- 13:21:45 [renato]
- https://github.com/w3c/poe/projects/1
- 13:22:13 [victor]
- victor: sI open about 6-8 of them, and all of them "minor"
- 13:22:22 [victor]
- victor: but there is no tag for "minor"
- 13:23:10 [victor]
- renato: we pay attention to the project table instead
- 13:23:22 [renato]
- All open issues to be closed
- 13:23:23 [victor]
- ivan: we cannot go to the director with this amount of open issues
- 13:23:31 [renato]
- q?
- 13:24:27 [victor]
- michaelS: what is the impact of constraint and refinement? this is perhaps what is missing in the "constraint property"
- 13:24:43 [victor]
- michaelS: ...this is the section that perhaps can be improved instead.
- 13:25:29 [victor]
- victor: why dont we have another call Ben/Renato/Michael right now or tomorrow? (and others, i.e., I would like to join as well)
- 13:25:56 [victor]
- ivan: this change would lead to a second CR
- 13:26:16 [victor]
- michaelS: it is not a crucial change, it is just "clarifying"
- 13:26:31 [victor]
- benws_: we make explicit what was implicit
- 13:26:37 [victor]
- ivan: this is a very fine line
- 13:26:58 [victor]
- renato: we did take out a couple of sentences from the spec in order to create the "rule processing" section. so it would be simply reverting changes.
- 13:27:45 [victor]
- q+
- 13:28:04 [michaelS]
- q-
- 13:28:07 [ivan]
- ack michaelS
- 13:28:10 [renato]
- ack victor
- 13:28:17 [victor]
- https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Validation
- 13:28:20 [benws_]
- q+
- 13:28:47 [michaelS]
- q+
- 13:29:11 [victor]
- benws: why dont we meet on Thursday?
- 13:29:16 [CarolineB]
- good for me
- 13:30:10 [victor]
- victor: please review the list of normalization transformations and validations that I have extracted from the specs and implemented. https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Validation
- 13:30:14 [victor]
- michaelS: what is the schedule?
- 13:30:20 [victor]
- michaelS: what about Thursday?
- 13:30:38 [victor]
- ivan: if it is on Thursday, there must be quorum
- 13:30:55 [victor]
- ivan: at least a number of people should be there
- 13:31:21 [victor]
- ivan: besides, I canno join (even if my presence is unimportant)
- 13:31:40 [victor]
- ivan: please inform me on the time if you meet
- 13:31:58 [victor]
- LindaB: 8.30 New York time is fine
- 13:32:13 [victor]
- ivan: and dont forget closing the issues
- 13:32:56 [renato]
- todo: remove section 2.6.8 and add some narrative back into the specific sections
- 13:33:04 [victor]
- ivan: how much time do we need for the CR?
- 13:33:11 [victor]
- ivan: the test period, I mean
- 13:33:24 [victor]
- RESOLUTION: remove section 2.6.8 and add some narrative back into the specific sections
- 13:33:40 [renato]
- Next call: Thursday 14 Sept 12:30 GMT
- 13:33:58 [victor]
- ivan: and on Friday, emails have to be sent
- 13:34:02 [victor]
- q-
- 13:34:12 [michaelS]
- q-
- 13:34:17 [benws_]
- ack b
- 13:34:18 [victor]
- renato: AOB?
- 13:35:02 [victor]
- michaelS: who will implement the changes in the last resolution?
- 13:35:05 [victor]
- renato: I will
- 13:35:16 [victor]
- michaelS: please make sure it is ready by Thursday morning
- 13:36:30 [victor]
- victor: 22.30 at Renato's, 8.30 Linda's and Victor, 13.30 Ben, 14.30 Michael and Simon
- 13:36:41 [victor]
- renato: what shall we do with example 22
- 13:36:57 [victor]
- benws_: oh, no it is correct
- 13:37:53 [victor]
- michaelS: please read the draft mails
- 13:38:05 [ivan]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 13:38:05 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-poe-minutes.html ivan
- 13:38:13 [ivan]
- trackbot, end telcon
- 13:38:13 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 13:38:13 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been LindaB, ivan, renato, MichaelS, victor, benws_, caroline
- 13:38:21 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 13:38:21 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-poe-minutes.html trackbot
- 13:38:22 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 13:38:22 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items