Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

Approve last meeting minutes

<phila> https://www.w3.org/2016/06/06-poe-minutes

(thank)

RESOLUTION: Last week's minutes approved

RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes

Spec Name proposal

RESOLUTION: this topic is postposed until the next week

Use cases

Use Case Update

benws2: Should we discuss the requirements one by one?
... I want to discuss the requirements derived from my contribution, on Complex Constraints (constraints on constraints)

<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements

<simonstey> 1.3.18

<simonstey> 1.3.1.8

benws2: I am not clear if the 1.3.8 is a new Requirement or not.

<simonstey> +q

renato: As it is formulated, this is to vague as to be a Requirement.

<mmcrober> it's not actually a prohibition, it's a constrained grant, I think

renato: "Express complex constraints such as 'No use in UK after 7 days' " is the conjunction of two constraints.

simonstey: The boolean operators OR/AND were already described in a nonnormative section of ODRL2.1

renato: They were named as "extended relations", perhaps being the same as "complex constraint".

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Booleans and rules

<mmcrober> renato: "no use in the UK or after 7 days" you could actually do (geographical prohibition + temporally-limited usage grant), but something more complex could be harder

<simonstey> https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/#section-5 -> 4.1 extended relations

phila: Please do note that we are not defining a rule language, as stated in the charter.

ivan: I disagree with Phil. Having a requirement based on a Use Case is perfectly useful and good to have. At the end of the discussions, we can say certain Requirements will not be satisfied. But they can be material for a later work.

<mmcrober> ivan: +1

<simonstey> +q

simonstey: we should keep the requirements we can all agree on, and we should discuss more on them.

ISSUE: Should requirements be limited to those that we plan to fulfill?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-8 - Should requirements be limited to those that we plan to fulfill?. Please complete additional details at <https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/8/edit>.

<simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Temporal_Constraint

benws2: I would like to discuss the next requiremen t1.3.2.11, temporal constraints https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Temporal_Constraint

<mmcrober> renato - does the ODRL interpretation of xsd:dateTime agree with XSD's?

renato: there is a term to talk about a recurringly occuring event

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about time

renato: Example: "Set a temporal constraint (ex. after some date) for the exercise of the object of the odrl:action predicate" --> the problem with the example is about "when does the embargo start?"

<phila> OWL Time update (Editor's draft)

what about existing, older ontologies like https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/ ?

<simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Reference_to_Source_License

victor: I do note that other time ontologies exist

<simonstey> +q

(thanks phila!)

renato: Regarding the requirement https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Reference_to_Source_License , at the moment ODRL can relate to a license but not link

<mmcrober> +q

simonstey: policy may inherit from asset

(I made an error. learning how to correct it...)

benws2: this might be a different problem for each of the serializations

simonstey: this is more of a semantic relation

<simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Guidance_on_Rights_Assignments_through_Aggregation_and_Derivation

benws2: The next requirement i want to discuss is 1.3.4.5 https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Guidance_on_Rights_Assignments_through_Aggregation_and_Derivation
... derivations and aggregations of datasets are very common, and I would like to have automatically a compliant policy for the derivative resource

<simonstey> +q

renato: there should be a "good practices" document

<simonstey> -q

<Sabrina> +1 for best practices guide

renato: the section on processing rules is actually about having best practices

<simonstey> +q

benws2: In this particular point, I would like to check with a lawyer that this is the right thing to do. If you aggregate two datasets you can automatically create a license including the previous permissions. This is obvious for me, as a computer scientist, but should be checked with a lawyer.

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to witter on about tools

jo: best practices are related to particular tasks

benws2: actual adopters of ODRL will have specific problems they would like to have guidance in.

simonstey: An ODRL primer can fulfill this need for guidance.

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about a test suite as complement to Primer

<jo> One should have a view as to what kinds of tools could or should be developed to carry out tasks related to ODRL and this informs the nature of BEst Practice statements

phila: atomic elements of licenses have been mapped into digital expressions. this can be arguable, but stating the provenance, the problem vanishes: "Lawyer X says that...."
... primer and testsuite are all the same if perceived as elements towards granting conformance

benws2: Next requirement to be discussed is 1.3.4.6

<phila> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Guidance_on_Specifying_Subsets

benws2: I want to express "This policy applies to all the members of this collection, or "to the results of this query"". This is the sense of the requirement (https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Guidance_on_Specifying_Subsets)

james: there is another similar requirement

benws2: we have to make sure that the same requirement, if coming from different UCs, is not repeated

simonstey: some requirements are still pending to be processed. and yes, some are overlapping, so not many new requirements are to be expected.

renato: requirements should be sorted and categorized by the next call
... message to all participants: please help inasmuch as needed in this task

<scribe> ACTION: Use Case editors to integrate the contributions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/13-poe-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Error finding 'Use'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/users>.

WG Tracker

<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/pendingreview

<phila> action-11

<trackbot> action-11 -- Stuart Myles to Add a template use case -- due 2016-05-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/11

<phila> close action-11

<trackbot> Closed action-11.

<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open

renato: there were open actions for mo, ben and phila

<mmcrober> close action-1

<trackbot> Closed action-1.

<phila> close action-1

<trackbot> Closed action-1.

mo: my action has been done.

phila: I expect to get feedback from bigdataeurope
... regrets for the next week

<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/raised

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to raise an AOB just before we close

renato: four issues had already been raised https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/raised

<phila> SDS Voc

phila: I announce a Workshop in Amsterdam on 30/11/2016 https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/ , on content negotiation: we will be able to specify "I want ODRL2.1 in JSON, or in XML, or in RDF"
... I am open to receive candidates to become PC members.

renato: remember TPAC, where a f2f meeting will be held

<james> thanks