11:55:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
11:55:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/24-poe-irc
11:56:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
11:56:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
11:56:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
11:56:03 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
11:56:04 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
11:56:04 <trackbot> Date: 24 October 2016
11:56:22 <phila_> regrets+ Ben, Michael, Stuart
11:56:26 <phila_> regrets+ Caroline
11:56:33 <renato> renato has joined #poe
11:56:54 <simonstey> regrets+ Victor
11:57:27 <renato> present+ renato
11:57:39 <Serena> Serena has joined #poe
11:57:39 <renato> Chair: renato
11:57:47 <renato> Regrets: Stuart, Michael, Ben, Caroline, Victor
11:57:53 <simonstey> present+
11:58:02 <ivan> present+
11:58:09 <renato> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:02:28 <Serena> present+
12:03:32 <Brian_Ulicny> Brian_Ulicny has joined #poe
12:03:59 <simonstey> scribe: simonstey
12:04:25 <Brian_Ulicny> present+
12:04:35 <simonstey> Topic: admin
12:04:49 <simonstey> renato: approval of last week's minutes
12:04:59 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-minutes.html
12:05:02 <Brian_Ulicny> +1
12:05:09 <Serena> +1
12:05:23 <simonstey> ... no objections; minutes accepted
12:05:37 <simonstey> Topic: UC from BSIG
12:05:38 <phila> present+
12:05:56 <renato> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15nbqGY20IIGbTQOzKxzw59TLzwfPpRZu-1KKA97phKg/edit
12:06:29 <simonstey> renato: we got some UC from the book industry study group
12:07:01 <phila> Happy, sure
12:07:02 <simonstey> ... we'll now go through them one by one
12:07:05 <Serena> sure
12:07:12 <simonstey> Topic: POE.UC.28: Enhance discovery of library collection materials
12:08:06 <simonstey> ... some req. read more like principles rather than actual requirements
12:08:22 <phila> q+
12:08:37 <simonstey> ... not sure what library-to-library licensing actually entails
12:08:44 <simonstey> +q
12:08:48 <simonstey> ack phila
12:09:54 <phila> simonstey: Second what Phil said, this library to library case isn't special from our POV. You can define an agreement, one library is the assignee, one is the assigner etc.
12:09:58 <simonstey> phila: one response is "this is already covered" and I think so too
12:10:12 <simonstey> 22.1 -> already covered
12:10:34 <simonstey> +q
12:11:17 <Brian_Ulicny> +q
12:11:34 <phila> simonstey: This could be a super valuable asset that you physically display but only for the case of someone to look at t, not to lend it out etc.
12:11:37 <phila> ack s
12:11:51 <simonstey> ack Brian_Ulicny
12:12:39 <simonstey> Brian_Ulicny: not sure what "display for discovery" actually means
12:12:57 <simonstey> renato: maybe we should ask them for some clarification
12:13:08 <simonstey> 22.2 -> ask BISG for clarification
12:13:54 <phila> simonstey: This is related too the grouping  of assets?
12:14:00 <phila> ... The chapters, graphs etc.
12:14:49 <simonstey> renato: later on we have req. referring to breaking down the asset into individual parets
12:17:00 <simonstey> s/parets/parts/
12:17:32 <simonstey> 22.3 -> already satisfied (i.e. defning perm/.. for individual subcomponents and group them together in a policy)
12:17:38 <simonstey> 22.4 -> already satisfied
12:17:49 <simonstey> Topic: POE.UC.29
12:20:33 <phila> q+
12:20:51 <simonstey> ack phila
12:21:11 <simonstey> phila: that's potentially a bigger problem than just applying perm/prohibitions
12:21:27 <simonstey> ... this I believe is a hot topic in digital publishing
12:22:09 <simonstey> ... if you have an ID for your document, how are you identifying individual parts?
12:22:39 <simonstey> ivan: I don't think this WG should try to invent something
12:22:53 <simonstey> ... we should take whatever's already out there
12:23:14 <simonstey> ... I think the issue here is whether this can be used for ODRL
12:23:52 <simonstey> ... the gettyimage is a difficult example in that realm
12:24:02 <simonstey> s/realm/context/
12:25:00 <simonstey> ivan: if I have a resource, can I assign perm/proh to that resource
12:25:16 <simonstey> ... and subsequently to parts of that resource too?
12:25:30 <simonstey> renato: well.. partially
12:26:05 <simonstey> ... we want to have something that allows us to define "parts" of an asset
12:27:09 <simonstey> ivan: I have URI1 describing certain rights, URI2 describing some other rights
12:27:26 <phila> q+
12:27:48 <simonstey> ... can I say -> for everything that's not covered by URI1, look for it at URI2
12:27:55 <simonstey> renato: no, I don't think so
12:27:58 <simonstey> ack phila
12:28:55 <simonstey> phila: it is not easy to define such "default behavior/set of metadata", we did that in POWDER
12:29:17 <simonstey> ... I think we are getting well beyond what this WG should do
12:29:50 <simonstey> ... I'm not proposing POWDER as a solution, just wanted to mention it
12:30:16 <Brian_Ulicny> +q
12:30:16 <simonstey> +q
12:31:11 <simonstey> ivan: from an ODRL point of view, structure isn't that important
12:31:18 <simonstey> ack Brian_Ulicny
12:31:26 <simonstey> Brian_Ulicny: I think there are 2 issues here
12:32:27 <simonstey> ... 1) whether rights of parts are communicated back to the whole
12:33:43 <phila> simonstey: Regarding this issue of parts of a whole, applying things to the whole or parts... this is put here in the domain of libraries, but we also have it coming from TR. They boil down to this use case.
12:34:57 <ivan> q+
12:35:52 <phila> q+
12:35:56 <phila> ack s
12:36:00 <phila> ack i
12:36:22 <simonstey> ivan: I want to be a bit cautious about saying "just put a URI on it"
12:37:19 <simonstey> ... I would not dismiss the fact that someones uses a blank node for describing a resource
12:37:49 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#eg2-6 POWDER eg
12:38:02 <simonstey> phila: I keep talking about powder
12:38:18 <simonstey> ... it's an example of a policy
12:38:37 <simonstey> ... line 7 -> beginning of an audit list (dr = description resource)
12:38:58 <simonstey> ... 1) IRI set 2) set of descriptors
12:39:43 <simonstey> [phila explains example POWDER policy]
12:40:30 <ivan> q+
12:40:36 <ivan> ack phila
12:40:52 <simonstey> ack ivan
12:40:59 <ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-respec.html
12:41:11 <simonstey> ivan: that's the document I was referring to
12:41:35 <simonstey> ... section 3 the selectors
12:41:41 <ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-respec.html#TextQuoteSelector_def
12:42:01 <simonstey> ... an example expressed in JSON defining sections of a document
12:42:44 <simonstey> ... this (or a combination for that matter) is able to define specific parts of a document
12:43:09 <simonstey> ... what the rec. behind that doesn't have is URIs for it
12:43:24 <ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-respec.html#json-examples-converted-to-fragment-identifiers
12:43:39 <simonstey> ... here you do get URIs (ugly ones though)
12:44:23 <simonstey> ... I don't know whether it's possible for ODRL to define perms/prohi. for something that's defined like that
12:45:23 <simonstey> renato: you are talking about example 6 of the first link you've posted?
12:45:37 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:45:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/24-poe-minutes.html phila
12:45:59 <simonstey> ... I recall that we've a req. that requires to be able to define constraints on assets too
12:46:25 <phila> present+ Simon
12:46:29 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:46:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/24-poe-minutes.html phila
12:46:33 <ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-respec.html#SelectorRefinement_def
12:46:44 <simonstey> ivan: yes, it could be seen as constraint on a URI
12:48:03 <simonstey> [renato & ivan talking about possible realization in ODRL]
12:49:38 <simonstey> renato: we'll ask them to give us some clarification
12:50:08 <simonstey> 23.6/7 -> implementation specific
12:50:35 <simonstey> 23.1-5 -> ask BISG for clarification
12:50:36 <simonstey> Topic: POE.UC.30
12:52:55 <simonstey> ivan: 24.3 refers to the fact that certain publishers may provide free "samples" of their books
12:53:25 <simonstey> ... but this would then actually result in two different assets
12:53:30 <simonstey> +q
12:55:10 <phila> ack s
12:55:24 <phila> simonstey: I don't think we can enumerate all the possible purposes
12:55:48 <simonstey> renato: long long time ago we had something like "subscription"
12:57:02 <Serena> I agree with Simon
12:57:17 <phila> simonstey: I think the fact that we can add time to permissions etc. means ODRL covers these use cases
12:59:49 <simonstey> Topic: POE.UC.31
13:00:10 <simonstey> 25.1 -> supported using grantUse/nextPolicy
13:02:05 <simonstey> 24.1-24.5 -> covered, need some investigation though
13:03:30 <phila> RRSAgent, draft
13:03:30 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft', phila.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
13:03:32 <simonstey> Topic: change of meeting time
13:03:43 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:03:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/24-poe-minutes.html phila
13:04:01 <Serena> Serena has left #poe
13:04:54 <phila> phila: Will circulate new time of 12:30 UTC which, in UTC terms, is half an hour later than the current meeting time, but will be half an hour earlier on northern hemisphere calendars after DST ends
13:05:03 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:05:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/24-poe-minutes.html phila
14:05:19 <benws> benws has joined #poe
14:08:10 <benws> benws has joined #poe
14:12:23 <benws2> benws2 has joined #poe
15:07:22 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe
15:21:03 <benws> benws has joined #poe
15:24:49 <benws2> benws2 has joined #poe
15:52:01 <benws> benws has joined #poe
15:55:37 <benws2> benws2 has joined #poe
16:24:17 <phila_> phila_ has joined #poe
16:42:29 <phila_> phila_ has joined #poe
18:12:21 <phila_> phila_ has joined #poe