11:57:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
11:57:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-irc
11:57:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
11:57:08 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
11:57:10 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
11:57:10 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
11:57:11 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
11:57:11 <trackbot> Date: 03 October 2016
11:57:34 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #poe
11:58:07 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
11:59:33 <victor> victor has joined #poe
11:59:36 <victor> Hi!
11:59:40 <victor> present+ victor
12:01:13 <sabrina> sabrina has joined #poe
12:01:13 <renato> present+ renato
12:01:24 <sabrina> present+ sabrina
12:01:29 <benws2> Can someone please give me the webex link.
12:01:40 <benws2> present+
12:01:52 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161003
12:02:02 <michaelS> present+ michaelS
12:02:05 <simonstey> zakim, who's here?
12:02:05 <Zakim> Present: victor, renato, sabrina, benws, michaelS
12:02:07 <Zakim> On IRC I see sabrina, victor, michaelS, simonstey, Zakim, RRSAgent, renato, benws2, ivan, phila, trackbot
12:02:09 <simonstey> present+
12:02:20 <phila> phila has changed the topic to: Agenda for 2016-10-03: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161003
12:02:24 <ivan> present+
12:02:27 <phila> present+ phila
12:02:51 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:03:01 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:03:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes.html phila
12:03:47 <phila> chair: Renato
12:03:59 <phila> scribe: phila
12:04:01 <phila> scribeNick: phila
12:04:06 <renato> Chair: Ben
12:04:23 <phila> Topic: Approving TPAC minutes
12:04:29 <Brian_Ulicny> Brian_Ulicny has joined #poe
12:05:04 <phila> They're linked from the agenda
12:05:27 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html Minutes 22 Sept
12:05:39 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings
12:05:43 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes.html Minutes 23 Sept
12:06:06 <benws2> No
12:06:16 <smyles> smyles has joined #poe
12:06:59 <Brian_Ulicny> present+
12:07:25 <phila> phila: Will try and make minutes appear in main list
12:07:36 <phila> benws2: Any objections to the minutes?
12:07:49 <phila> renato: I'd like to go through them here if we can
12:08:13 <simonstey> +q
12:08:45 <phila> renato: I just thought we'd go through the topics...
12:08:47 <smyles> present+
12:09:01 <phila> benws2: Might others go through it offline and bring any issues up?
12:09:18 <phila> ... I don't want to spend the whole of this call going over stuff we've done already [scribe paraphrase]
12:09:21 <phila> ack s
12:10:19 <phila> simonstey: An admin comment - I pointed out last week that if you look at the summary of the resolutions, for example resolutions 5-8 which are just 'not accepted'. The minutes don't necessarily tell you what was resolved
12:11:09 <phila> simonstey: There's a resolution called POE.R.V.03 ACCEPTED is clearer
12:11:28 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary
12:11:30 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary Resolution summary
12:11:46 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/23-poe-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary
12:12:13 <phila> benws2: I see. Who would do that work?
12:12:18 <phila> phila: Who was scribing?
12:13:14 <phila> phila: It will have to be me but future scribes please take note.
12:13:28 <phila> benws2: So we can run through the summary of resolutions which isn't all that long.
12:13:47 <phila> renato: We had 17 topic areas on day 1 and we only have 10 resolutions
12:14:01 <simonstey> +q
12:14:01 <phila> benws2: OK, I do think people should go through it offline rather than take up time here.
12:14:12 <phila> ... And almost everyone on this call was there.
12:14:52 <phila> benws2: So when can we approve the minutes, renato?
12:15:29 <phila> ... It's an approval that the minutes are a fair reflection
12:15:42 <phila> ... and don't contain any misrepresentations
12:15:51 <phila> benws2: So unless I hear an objection?
12:15:56 <phila> [None]
12:16:50 <phila> simonstey: A minor comment - if we encounter... the question is, if we have made resolutions, but if they're not scribed fully, do we have to re-do that in another call?
12:17:46 <phila> ... Renato said that we have a large number of topics discussed at TPAC, b ut we only have 10 officially noted in the minutes, so if the resolutions aren't recorded in the minutes, do we need to go back and re-do those?
12:18:48 <phila> benws2: I think we care. I suggest we update the reqs doc with the resolutions from TPAC. Where we find gaps, see if there is an implicit resolution in the minutes, then maybe we need to go back.
12:19:03 <phila> ... Any objections?
12:19:42 <phila> PROPOSED: Update the UCR according to the minutes. Highlight any gaps in those minutes and bring matters arising to future telco
12:19:44 <simonstey> +1
12:19:47 <CarolineB> CarolineB has joined #poe
12:20:18 <phila> renato: The UCR has no reqs in it at the moment. Are we putting all the Reqs in the UCR and then note the ones that were rejected?
12:20:46 <phila> simonstey: At this stage, I'd note it in the wiki. And only put the agreed ones in the GH version
12:21:01 <phila> benws2: I agree. Reflect it in the wiki, not the doc itself
12:21:03 <phila> +1 from me on that
12:21:16 <phila> PROPOSED: Update the UCR wiki according to the minutes. Highlight any gaps in those minutes and bring matters arising to future telco
12:21:23 <simonstey> +1
12:21:25 <Brian_Ulicny> +1
12:21:25 <benws2> +1
12:21:27 <victor> +1
12:21:28 <michaelS> +1
12:21:29 <ivan> +1
12:21:30 <phila> +1
12:21:31 <sabrina> +1
12:21:36 <smyles> +0
12:21:42 <phila> RESOLUTION: Update the UCR wiki according to the minutes. Highlight any gaps in those minutes and bring matters arising to future telco
12:22:36 <phila> Resolution: Minutes of TPAC face to face meeting accepted
12:22:42 <phila> Topic: Use Cases
12:22:52 <phila> benws2: We got two new UCs from the book industry at TPAC
12:23:04 <phila> ... They should be added. Who gets that job?
12:23:21 <phila> renato: I had the impression that those UCs were being drafted and we're going to get a new version soon.
12:23:34 <phila> benws2: How long do we have? It took a while to get their originals
12:23:44 <ivan> +1 to Ben
12:23:54 <phila> ... I don't really want to hold us up for another couple of months?
12:24:05 <phila> renato: We can give them a deadline as well as discuss overall deadline for UCs?
12:24:16 <phila> benws2: You're point person with that group
12:24:44 <phila> renato: I can send them an e-mail and give them a week to respond.
12:25:03 <phila> Topic: Data Quality policy Use case
12:25:18 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#POE.UC.26_Data_Quality_Policy
12:25:22 <michaelS> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#POE.UC.26_Data_Quality_Policy
12:26:02 <victor> http://pro.europeana.eu/person/antoine-isaac
12:26:43 <phila> phila: Gives pocket background to Antoine
12:27:18 <phila> benws2: It looks to me as if he has given an accurate reflection of his use case using the existing ODRL spec
12:27:51 <simonstey> +q
12:27:59 <phila> renato: I cane to that conclusion. In his Duty, there's no action. I think he missed that the assignee up time {... ??}
12:28:13 <phila> ... In ODRL 1.1 we had a group doing a profile for services, looking at things like uptime
12:28:50 <phila> benws2: There's another issue here that we're deadling with. It's the diff between a dcat:Dataset and a Distribution.
12:29:15 <phila> ... He's targeting the permission at the Dataset and the duty at the Distribution
12:31:02 <phila> phila: Rambles about the diff between dataset and distribution
12:31:49 <smyles> q+
12:32:15 <phila> phila: So ODRL has a problem with target and duty being different things
12:32:23 <phila> renato: What he has is fine from an ODRL POV
12:32:52 <phila> ... Duties can be obligations on other resources, not necessarily the original target of the policy.
12:33:17 <phila> [Discussion on detail of assignees, policies]
12:33:29 <phila> benws2: So it looks as if existing ODRL can do it.
12:33:33 <simonstey> q?
12:33:38 <phila> ... Should we go back to Antoine?
12:33:42 <phila> ack simonstey
12:33:50 <victor> A qualification of assets with FRBR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records) would ease Ben's case. Once these entities are connected (dataset, distribution), logical relations can be established in a simple manner.
12:33:59 <phila> simonstey: Just reading the policy, I was wondering whether a duty must have an action?
12:34:06 <phila> benws2: Yes.
12:34:20 <phila> simonstey: It looks as if there is an action missing.
12:34:34 <phila> ... He says "The expression of constraints in ODRL seems quite unfit with expressing general constraints on values in RDF graphs"
12:34:46 <phila> ... I would argue that this is not the goal of ODRL, that's what SHACL is for
12:34:53 <renato> ODRL ne SHACL ;-)
12:35:05 <ivan> q+
12:35:18 <phila> ... So in this case, ODRL can be used, but I'm sure there are situations where this constraint mechanism of ODRL is not expressivbe enough to handle all use cases
12:35:43 <phila> simonstey: Maybe we need to incorporate a means to refer to a SHACL shape from ODRL.
12:36:35 <phila> benws2: Between us, can we get an example of a UC from Anotine that can't be so easily satisfied, where the use of SHACL would satisfy it.
12:36:36 <phila> q+
12:36:49 <phila> ack sm
12:37:29 <phila> smyles: I wonder if Antoine's comment... is he saying there' nothing in the ODRL policy that tells you the relationship between the dataset and the distribution
12:37:50 <phila> ... So I wonder if we need a means to express the relationship. And only AI can answer that.
12:38:33 <phila> smyles: I'd like to caution - not everyone uses or wants to use RDF. Let's not require RDF, adding in lots of RDF processing
12:38:42 <phila> ack ivan
12:39:01 <smyles> q-
12:39:27 <phila> ivan: I would be careful with bringing SHACL here. I tried to re-read Antoine's work. I think he uses the word constraint differently from ODRL.
12:39:44 <phila> ... He has difficulties in attaching rights expression-like things to an RDF graph.
12:39:49 <simonstey> The mission of the RDF Data Shapes Working Group is to produce a language for defining structural constraints on RDF graphs. In the same way that SPARQL made it possible to query RDF data, the product of the RDF Data Shapes WG will enable the definition of graph topologies for interface specification, code development, and data verification.
12:39:56 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/charter
12:40:14 <phila> benws2: That would seem to advise that we ask for a use case that is not so readily satisfied by ODRL
12:41:17 <benws2> q?
12:41:37 <phila> ack me
12:42:42 <phila> phila: I am happy with pointing to 'a validation mechanism' but I would caution against specifying SHACL. Too RDF-centric and creates dependency we can avoid
12:42:51 <phila> benws2: Discusses who will write to Antoine
12:43:16 <phila> action: phila to write to Antoine as heads up for Renato's mail
12:43:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Write to antoine as heads up for renato's mail [on Phil Archer - due 2016-10-10].
12:43:32 <phila> action: renato to write to Antoine asking for example that ODRL can't handle
12:43:33 <trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Write to antoine asking for example that odrl can't handle [on Renato Iannella - due 2016-10-10].
12:43:42 <phila> Topic: Educational Use Only use case
12:43:54 <phila> [Scribe missed some discussion]
12:44:24 <phila> benws2: Meaning of 'Educational use' varies according to country but the concept exists everywhere
12:44:33 <phila> ... So do we try and define it?
12:45:06 <phila> ... We have terms like read and derive, but 'Educational Use Only' seems to be embedded in local jurisdictional meaning. Should we support those?
12:45:32 <phila> renato: If there's no support for it, we don't do it.
12:45:35 <phila> q+
12:45:45 <phila> ack me
12:46:39 <phila> phila: Does this speak to the enumerated list we talked about in Lisbon?
12:46:41 <renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-policyUsage
12:46:48 <phila> renato: It's a value for an actiuon.
12:47:42 <phila> benws2: So it sounds as if we need a more popular appeal for 'Educational Use Only' if it's to go into the vocab.
12:47:48 <benws2> q?
12:48:01 <phila> smyles: When we were working on ODRL we identified Educational Use as a need to indicate for some of the rights work that we do.
12:48:11 <simonstey> q+
12:48:18 <phila> ... We might say of a video, not for these purposes, but Ed Use is OK.
12:48:26 <phila> benws2: So you have a specific meaning of Educational Use?
12:48:33 <phila> smyles: Nope. It;'s just written that way.
12:48:52 <victor> s/thatn/than
12:49:01 <phila> ... We often have restrictions for ... this sporting video can be used in a news programme but not a sports programme.
12:49:07 <phila> ... That sounds similar to Ed Use
12:49:16 <phila> ... You're not allowed to use this for parody.
12:49:22 <phila> benws2: We have similar things/.
12:49:33 <simonstey> q-
12:49:34 <phila> ... But I wouldn't expect ODRL to manage and define.
12:49:44 <phila> benws2: This is domain specific.
12:50:14 <phila> smyles: So ODRL currently has a mechanism (purpose) but it doesn't provide the values.
12:50:21 <phila> benws2: That's my intuition.
12:50:31 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:50:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes.html phila
12:50:41 <phila> Topics: Issues and Actions
12:51:46 <phila> action-17?
12:51:46 <trackbot> action-17 -- Simon Steyskal to Update ucr editor's draft as discussed -- due 2016-07-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW
12:51:46 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/17
12:51:53 <phila> simonstey: That's an old action.
12:52:07 <phila> simonstey: This was for our first PWD
12:52:16 <phila> close action-17
12:52:16 <trackbot> Closed action-17.
12:52:35 <phila> action: simon to update UCR according to today's discussion
12:52:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-34 - Update ucr according to today's discussion [on Simon Steyskal - due 2016-10-10].
12:53:07 <phila> renato: One of these actions came from TPAC
12:53:10 <phila> action-30?
12:53:10 <trackbot> action-30 -- Stuart Myles to Can we only have a json-ld serialisation? will it impact righstml? -- due 2016-09-30 -- OPEN
12:53:10 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/30
12:53:22 <phila> renato: That's on Stuart who wasn't there
12:53:46 <phila> ... The question is, if we had JSON-LD only, would that impact on Rights ML (i.e. no JSON-only)
12:53:54 <phila> smyles: I'll come back to the WG on that.
12:54:16 <phila> ... If we have that and eliminate 'pure JSON' do we also eliminate pure XML?
12:55:42 <phila> ivan: I would say you shouldn't become an expert... I can show you a spec that uses JSON-LD but you can read it as a JSON-only
12:56:12 <ivan> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/
12:56:31 <phila> ivan: I think... it does refer to JSON-LD in the intro...
12:57:02 <phila> ... All the examples there are all JSON. It's just the @context file that makes it JSON-LD which you can safely forget.
12:57:14 <phila> ivan: My ideal would be that ODRL can be expressed in a similar way.
12:57:32 <phila> smyles: This is a spec I wanted to look at anyway :-)
12:57:49 <simonstey> q+
12:58:26 <phila> simonstey: I see it as anyone can raise an issue, but the WG can decide not to open it or not.
12:58:30 <phila> ack simonstey
12:58:51 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/raised Raised Issues
13:00:09 <benws2> q?
13:00:14 <ivan> ivan has left #poe
13:00:36 <phila> renato: Issue 7 and 9 are now merged.
13:01:13 <phila> renato: We're only going to include requirements in the UCR that we're going to fulfil/address. The wiki will retain rejected ones.
13:01:17 <phila> RRSAgent, pointer
13:01:17 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-irc#T13-01-17
13:01:22 <phila> close issue-8
13:01:22 <trackbot> Closed issue-8.
13:04:44 <phila> [Discussion on possible future changes to call timing.]
13:04:49 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:04:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/03-poe-minutes.html phila
13:06:08 <phila> present+ Caroline