P&OE Weekly

<simonstey> what's our webex meeting id?

<simonstey> m383ae385ad7b77d69e2820e1cf does not work ;)

<phila> URL for WebEx is https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m3166d150f5844b3298350cb0b92680b9

<phila> See topic line for password

<simonstey> for me it says Enter the meeting number to join. NEW! Invited to a Personal Room? Enter the host's room ID.

<simonstey> it worked last week though

<phila> 640 402 848 simonstey

<phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/03/17-poe-minutes

<scribe> scribe: jo

phila: scribing is important as it is the record of our meeting, if you want to say something that is not for the the minutes then

<phila> Write /me to write a line not in minutes

phila: /me does not appear in the minutes (whereas if you do not what you type does appear in the minutes)
... please type present+ with your name to indicate your presence

<phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/03/17-poe-minutes

<phila> +1

<james> +1

phila: indicate your support for a proposal by adding +1 in IRC

<msteidl> +1

<serena_villata> +1

<paulj> +1

<carolineb> +1

<sabrina> +1

<magyarblip> +1

<benws> +1

<simonstey> +1

<renato> +1

phila: demonstrate regenerating the minutes
... and you will see that the resultion has been taken

RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/03/17-poe-minutes

phila: obviously that was not a very important resolution, it becomes more important that we have an audit trail of what the group has decided

benws: main purpose of the meeting is to make a call for use cases
... we are looking to automate rights management, the more use cases the better the standard
... three reasons for use cases
... 1. to test ODRL (gap analysis)
... 2. for exemplification in the standard
... 3. worked examples of more business realistic use cases
... how does the stanrds fit with my business problem
... so how can we manage the use cases
... 1. maintain on wiki
... 2. we need to publish a note on those use cases
... 3. we can put them in the requirements
... . 4. possibly put them in a primer so people can understand, not within charter but worth discussing
... so, how do we want to do this?

phila: want to ask … there is a set of use cases for ODRL, where are they?

<msteidl> https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/xml/2.1/

<msteidl> https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/json/2.1/

msteidl: in the encoding sections

<simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/Profiles/RDFa/UseCase/index.html don't know how up to date those are

<phila> DWBP UCR

phila: here are a couple of examples
... want to talk process

<phila> CSV on the web UCR

phila: the usual way this is done is for people to write use cases on the wiki then a copuple of
... people offer to write a document, that is the usual way
... however …
... because of the implrementation experience, we don’t necessarily have to do that
... it doesn’t say that we will write a primeer
... if you choose, we don’t want to write a use case document, we want to write a primer with use cases in it
... you can choose to do that

<renato> https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/

renato: 11 original use cases are in ???
... they are in the encoding spec, the normative use cases in the model spec in UML

benws: though they are useful for explaining how the standard can be applied they don’t match any of the business use cases

renato: yes they illustrate scenarios, how encodings can be expressed
... we didn’t have any business feeding use cases at the time

benws: so we want busienss driven use caes
... people to contribute, then we can do the gap analysis
... and decide whether we want to publish a note
... if there are signficant requirements, otherwsie maybe a primer

james: I’d like to see both business and technical use cases fleshed out

<phila> An example of UCs collected in a wiki

benws: shall we do this in the wiki

phila: example from another group, useful to have a template, we will need a different template
... narrative, statement problems, things to address … for example
... need someone to drive it
... an owner
... for clarification etc.
... usually the editor, or two editors
... that is a long way of asking for volunteers

benws: james would you like to offer a template for your use cases
... then we can ask for editors

james: yes, from a technical side

msteidl: I can help too

benws: michael can you be use case editor?

msteidl: “I do”

benws: james please can you contribute templates by next meeting
... more volunteers pls?

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: MSteidl to take on initial editorship of use cases

<phila> +1

<carolineb> +1

<serena_villata> +1

<magyarblip> +1

<james> +1

<benws> +1

<simonstey> +1

<paulj> +1

<sabrina> +1

RESOLUTION: MSteidl to take on initial editorship of use cases

<renato> Social Web WG template

<renato> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Use_Case_TF

phila: to clarify, Michael you are going to create the page on wiki

<msteidl> yes, I will create a Use Case landing page

<phila> The wiki is the WG home - https://www.w3.org/2016/poe, magyarblip

<benws> +q

<magyarblip> duh, sorry was looking on the wiki for the wiki (too early)

benws: any further questions around use cases?

phila: I am intrigued (and interested) the original use cases are not yours, Ben, plus renato says they are not business use cases
... what did you have in mind

benws: we have quite complicated needs, e.g. time restrictions
... plus a big use use case is comparing supplier policies against product policies
... that kind of automation we are looking for

renato: a bit of history
... when we were developing oRDL, there were a lot a use cases that are not documented in specs
... eg. proposal to MPEG21 involved use cases for them
... so lots of use cases but not all of them documented in the spec
... another question, we can use the ODRL community gp to ask for use cases
... asuuming that CG does not have write access to wiki
... so they would need to email them to someone

benws: they could write to an equivalent use case page there

<phila> The ODRL CG wiki

reanto: keep them in one spot? have a template that wortks we can solicit submissions

<renato> https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/wiki/Publishing_Embedded_and_Royalty_Free_(RF)_Assets

<scribe> ACTION: Renato to ask the community group to contribute use cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/24-poe-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

(discussion about use of Github vs Tracker)

<magyarblip> +1 github

+1 tracker

<simonstey> +1 tracker

<carolineb> +1 github

<benws> +1 github

phila: (we will know which way we are going “shortly”)

<serena_villata> +1 tracker

(more discussion about githib vs tracker)

renato: posted a URL up above of a use case that the CG was working on
... narrative about requirement and how it could be supported
... plus gaps highlighted
... need to highlight where gaps could be in current IDRL functionality

magyarblip: ref business use cases, my issues are not about ODRL the language, but I
... would like to see that the use cases consider not just in an access control system, but how they move around and how they
... connect up, resources and agents rather than policy. I will try to express this as part of my use cases. Can share what I have
... written in WIley in th past, they will guide.

benws: yes, please share
... and put on wiki for now

<simonstey> https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/wiki/ODRL_Linked_Data_Profile

simonstey: do we care about distinguishing user stories “lightweight” version of use case
... e.g. linked data profile for ODRL, and hence user stories around that
... so my question is do we care about stories or do we want to go directly to use cases

benws: what we really want is use cases, but perhaps at the early stage user stories will help us map the territory

james: going back to github, we are open sourcing apis with ODRL underneath, and our stuff will be on github
... but we would like to refer back to ODRL, so we could link back on GitHub
... would be useful to have in GitHub space

<phila> The WG's Github Repo

benws: agree ref developers but also githib is scary to business ppl

<carolineb> jo: too early to take a view re use cases user stories need to collect material

<carolineb> jop: Up to Michael and editor can then take a view

msteidl: agree collect first then we can select

<msteidl> Use Case page created at https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases - in fact empty at the moment, more will follow

msteidl: there we have use case page!

AOB

benws: how do we stop this!

phila: er, there are some technicalities
... which either I or Ivan will usually do

<renato> +1 tracker

phila: noting that we are evenly split on Gitbub vs Tracker
... tracker has several advantages which include integration with IRC

<renato> ODRL CG uses Tracker

<renato> https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/track/

phila: . I just one one only

benws: can we fix now?

phila: let’s try to fix it now

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group will us tracker for actions

ivan: eventually we will us github anyway
... using github issues therefore becomes mroe natural
... and all links with pull requests and so on (yada yada)
... my fear is that we will have to use github in any case
... we could use trackbot for actions
... you can’t use github for that
... CSVW WG we had duplcites and it was confusing
... so we should use one

benws: can the distinction be made between issues and actions

ivan: yes, we can use trackbot for actions
... very often threads end up being assigned to someone
... so eventually the boundaries become blurred

renato: CG has used trackbot
... perhaps we can start using trackbot

simonstey: two aspects: genenral (no specufic location in doc) and specific relating to a place in the doc
... can we split between those

ivan: don’t think this distinction is strong enough

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group will use tracker for actions

<magyarblip> fwiw i don't yet understand the ramifications

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group will use Tracker for Issues and Actions pending substantive documents on Github, when it will revisit the question

+1

<ivan> 0

<renato> +1

<paulj> +1

<smyles> 0

<msteidl> +1

<simonstey> +1

<magyarblip> 0

<sabrina> 0

<serena_villata> 0

<james> 0

<carolineb> 0

<phila> phila: Our definition of consensus: General agreement with no strong objections

RESOLUTION: The group will use Tracker for Issues and Actions pending substantive documents on Github, when it will revisit the question

(phila talks about “the nature of consensus”)

<scribe> ACTION: phila to set up trackbot [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/24-poe-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

benws: meeting closed

Regular Meeting time

phila: next meeting at the new regular time (mea culpa re this being a nuisance)

<phila> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20160404T12&p1=0&p2=47&p3=43&p4=195&p5=236

phila: monday 4th April noon gmt

benws: adjourned