Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

<scribe> scribe: jo

benws: lots of people missing because of hiolidays in (the rest of) europe

Minutes of last meeting

PROPOSAL: Agree minutes of last meeting https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes

<renato> +1

<smyles> +1

<phila> 0 wasn't there

<benws> +1

<magyarblip> +1

<james> +1

RESOLUTION: Agree minutes of last meeting https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes

Naming of the standard

benws: This is the name that the standard will go by, not the namespace
... can't call it Open Digital Rights, let's clarify the sensitivity

phila: W3C is not saying the word rights is a problem, it's the community that says it is
... we can say that ODRL does not stand for anything
... I don't feel strongly, the only people who have said it's a problem are members of the ODRL community

smyles: IPTC IPTC decided to call it's effort based on ODRL RightsML
... tells people what it is about, or what it is for
... not immediately clear what ODRL stands for
... can we come up with a name that is more secriptive
... want to stick with odrl as a namespace

benws: is it important that the name has meaning

smyles: yes

renato: my preference is to continue to use ODRL - it has a long history

<magyarblip> only do right language?

renato: don't see it as a problem if the meaning of the letters is not stated

magyarblip: historical artefact, you do forget what these things mean, don't see the issue, already well-known

benws: anyone else?
... seems eccentric to call something by an acronym that dare not speak its name
... do want people to talk about it
... name should have a resonance
... uptake is only a fraction of what it will be and would prefer to find a different name
... finding it impossible to change the name when discussing to POE

phila: don't have a strong view, however if we stick with ODRL, then fact that R stands for Rights creates a problem that we may have to change later
... do we think that R is a problem in any community
... we made several attempts at naming this group L for Licensing etc etc etc
... no one is particularly happy with POE
... don't want to have to back-track
... W3C is facing lots of comments with Encrypted Media Extensions
... we don't want to get engaged with that kind of distraction if we can avoid it

renato: RightsML is a profile of ODRL, the idea was to create profiles and they can name it what they want
... if we called it foobar then it would still be about rights
... the controversy about EME is nothing to do with it being called EME, after all
... the name won't make any difference to any controversy it may attract

benws: I think the name makes a lot of difference around uptake at least
... also what is nice about POE is that it is clear that it is about "Expression" not "Enforcement" of rights

<Brian_Ulicny> I'm happy with POE as the name, but still using odrl as namespace etc for historical reasons

benws: and people do jump to the conclusion that ODRL is about enforcement

<smyles> http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html "there are two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors"

benws: straw poll time

<Brian_Ulicny> No

<benws> -1

PROPOSAL: The standard wil be called ODRL

<renato> +1

<smyles> +1

<Brian_Ulicny> Sorry.

<Brian_Ulicny> -1

<magyarblip> i really don't care

<magyarblip> i care that it exists

<simonstey> +0.5 (in absence of any other alternative)

<james> 0 - I prefer the term Permission as I think its more accurate and matches what exists in the model

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about depth of TR's disapproval

phila: the aim of the process is to reach consensus (general agreement with no strong objections)
... if anyone feels strongly then you can raise a formal objection
... if that happens then chairs are asked to resolve then and if that doesn't happen then it gets escalated

smyles: what is difficult about the proposal
... what else might it be called, since it's hard to make a call otherwise

jo: +1 to smyles

<magyarblip> +1

benws: action on those who are not happy to come up with alternatives

<scribe> ACTION: Ben to initiate a conversation on list to resolve what the alternative names might be [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-10 - Initiate a conversation on list to resolve what the alternative names might be [on Benedict Whittam Smith - due 2016-05-23].

Use Cases

benws: how many ppl on this call have provided a use case?

<smyles> i have provided a use case

<phila> I have

benws: those who have provided a use can, can you pls note if a change to ODRL is presupposed by your use case

smyles: think it is possible, but could do with clarification - can this be used for exceptional or supplemental licenses

<james> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases

smyles: perhaps the processing model should be clarified or expanded

benws: does your use case touvh template things

smyles: no, but perhaps I should add that
... museum community would be keen

<scribe> ACTION: myles to add a template use case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - Add a template use case [on Stuart Myles - due 2016-05-23].

phila: my use case is already covered I think - temporal aspect from date or between dates

renato: yes date constraints are covered

<magyarblip> q

magyarblip: I have been torturing myself (a little bit) not so much that things are expressible, but that they are optimal
... also too many options is a bad thing

benws: we may wish to provide guidance on this
... are there some basic application patterns we want to recommend

phila: is this a duplicate, but anyway, most data that is put on a portal has a cc license of some kind, they also want to represent what cc by means
... can we associate a document in plain text with a machine readable decomposition of what is in it

renato: do you mean, you have an asset, there is a human readable license there is also a machine readable breakdown
... so long as you can actually express the natural language in odrl ..

phila: in a machine readable way, say that the document is normative if there is a difference

<magyarblip> prov?

benws: there could be a higher level ontological issue, ODRL's job is only to express the machine readable bit

renato: there is a W3C media ontology which might solve the use cae

benws: please raise this as a use case

<magyarblip> https://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/

benws: Open data people

phila: that's ODRS

smyles: I provided a use case, michael said to list requirement that come out of use case, do I have to list everything that I think is required, or the ones that are not covered by ODRL 2.1

phila: usually the case that a use case will throw up a list of atomic requirement most of which will be repeated across requirements
... in the end the requirements end up being an atomic list

benws: so the answer is an exhaustive list
... more on use cases?

AOB

benws: brian pls introduce yourself

brian: based in boston, have done OWL based policy reasoning about who can talk to whom across XMPP channels etc. just catching up on stuff and getting feet wet

meeting closed