See also: IRC log
<scribe> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161031
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/10/24-poe-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: meeting notes of the last week's call have been approved
<renato> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15nbqGY20IIGbTQOzKxzw59TLzwfPpRZu-1KKA97phKg/edit
POE.UC.32: Improve efficiency of foreign rights transactions (University Press)
renato: Requirement 3.1 is about
being language-agnostic for international purposes
... URI's are neutral hence every language can be potentially
supported
... this applies to 3.2 and 3.3 too
ivan: terms can also be numbers, and these be mapped to actual languages. This way the system is more neutral, as ODRL is English-oriented.
renato: W3C Internationalization Requeriments are the reference
ivan: what we do should be ok for these requirements
RESOLUTION: We considered UC32 as covered
renato: four requirements are stated
victor: is "given platform covered"?
renato: we can specify the specific device
michaelS: is platform=device?
renato: it is also about access control
ivan: we can represent the right to access
<James> Authentication and Authorisation is out of scope I think.
renato: Marc says it deals with usage permission
michaelS: this is a general problem. Once accessed... are they allowed to read only? copy-paste?
<James> Authorisation may make use of a ODRL an agreement depending on internal business rules
ivan: perhaps by allowing the plug-in of external vocabularies would suffice
renato: any other comment?
Brian_Ulicny: the licensing environment must be considered
renato: perhaps we need more clarification
RESOLUTION: We ask for more clarification to University Press
topic. POE.UC.34: Library collection management and access
renato: (reads aloud the four
requirements)
... we are already covering 34.1. There are other standards
like ONIX for Books, JATS for journal articles, XMP or PLUS for
images.
michaelS: this is much like composite photos
<michaelS> https://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/
michaelS: if we have a composited
asset, we can different policies for each of the regions of the
asset
... should these independent policies be somehow grouped?
renato: i understand that different parts of the assets are identified with URIs following the media fragments recommendations...
requirement 3 is about providing standard info on the copyright holders
(silence)
renato: requirement 4 is about different rightsholders in different geographical areas
michaelS: then we can simply have different policies, each applying to a region
<James> I agree with MichaelS
phila: there is a difference between geography and jurisdiction
michaelS: we use country codes as equivalent to jurisdiction
victor: (I had a small objection, but worthless to be discussed: we specify the country code tied to a restriction, not to an statement that is generally attributed to the party)
RESOLUTION UC.34 is already covered.
michaelS: 35.1 is already covered
Req. 35.2 is about "Permissions data may also be associated with a group of products"
ivan: we may want to remember POWDER...
renato: we can have more than 1 URI as the target. Can't we?
ivan: why not? a list of identifiers
James: this is like a problem we discussed: we may not want one policy pointing to 1000 assets, but 1000 assets pointing to one single policy.
smyles: a URI identifying a single thing is a very rare case. E.g. one video may have one URI. But it will have multiple renditions. E.g. a text item might be updated and have differently authored versions etc.
phila: There are several
solutions. URI templates are very well stablished (braces),
google uses wildcards
... are these UC important enough for this group to tackle
them?
ivan: CSV on the Web used URI templates.
<ivan> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6570
ivan: With that, we have something to start with.
phila: The "exceptions" are not perfectly handled (in POWDER they were better modeled) but it is just a detail
<phila> phila: I would say "A POWDER- like approach" rather than recommend it directly
renato: this should be no problem
-- 35.3 Permissions and obligations must be able to be
expressed for content locally authored, for example by a
teacher, that is not licensed from a third party.
... We are not in control of "35.4 policies must be able to be
persistent"
ivan: +1
renato: on 35.6, "The permissions and obligations associated with the coursepack may not align with the permissions and obligations associated with each of its components." we may consider there is a new resource.
<James> its UGC I think
renato: there may not be a perfect alignment, as conflicts may arise.
ivan: what can we do about it? we do not want to have checking mechanisms.
renato: at most, within the Semantics note.
renato: this may be part of the
implementation details
... 36.2 is pretty much the same
phila: From an American lawyer's point of view, the fact that you publish a text does not imply that the user has read it
renato: so we take it as out of
scope
... we are waiting from clarifications from XXX
ivan: There may be something more serious than URI pattern
renato: we need some narrative
text in the spec.
... any other comment regarding BISG?
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#POE.R.V.16_Assertion_Policy_Type
<James> It seems useful to me
RESOLUTION: we accept POE.R.V.16_Assertion_Policy_Type
renato: shall we come back to complex constraints? AOB? or shall we talk about virtual F2F?
renato suggest using exclusively the W3C issue tracker (and NOT the github issues).
renato: github issues may be tied
to the actual edition of the documents
... while W3C tracker can be used for actions imposed to actual
people.
RESOLUTION: W3C actions to be used as "TODO" list for participants.
renato: it has been announced as a "very long conference 4-6 hours"
phila: it is limited by
timezones.
... there is no easy way.
<Sabrina> Depending on the start time - I might not be able to attend the whole Virtual F2F due to a parent teacher meeting
phila: 12.30 UTC is perhaps the best for most of us --but 22.30 for Renato(!). Alternatively, we may start much later so that Renato wakes up early and joins.
renato: I prefer in my night, possibly abanding the call earlier than the rest.
phila: s/abanding/abandoning
renato: I will propose a window
of time; agenda is related to having WDs ready by mid
December.
... AOB?
phila: What about real F2F?
renato: will be included in the next agenda
<scribe> ACTION: renato to write VirtualF2F agenda - due next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/10/31-poe-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - Write virtualf2f agenda [on Renato Iannella - due 2016-11-07].