12:31:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:31:17 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-poe-irc
12:31:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:31:19 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:31:21 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
12:31:21 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:31:22 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:31:22 <trackbot> Date: 12 December 2016
12:31:47 <ivan> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161212
12:31:59 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Agenda 2016-12-12: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161212
12:32:07 <ivan> Chair: Ben
12:32:30 <benws> benws has joined #poe
12:32:43 <benws> present+
12:33:11 <michaelS> present+
12:34:15 <james> james has joined #poe
12:34:35 <phila> present+
12:34:58 <Sabrina> Sabrina has joined #poe
12:35:48 <Serena> *I'm in a meeting, I cannot join on WebEx for the moment*
12:36:48 <benws> James - are you joining the webex?
12:37:28 <james> trying to join webex, but having network issues
12:37:35 <Brian_Ulicny> Brian_Ulicny has joined #poe
12:37:42 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161212
12:37:45 <phila> chair: Ben
12:37:49 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #poe
12:37:49 <phila> scribe: Sabrina
12:37:55 <phila> scribeNick: Sabrina
12:38:06 <Brian_Ulicny> present+
12:38:13 <Sabrina> present+ Sabrina
12:38:18 <Brian_Ulicny> +1
12:38:21 <phila> Topic: Virtual F2F minutes approval
12:38:21 <phila> https://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes
12:38:32 <Sabrina> Can we approved the meeting minutes from the virtual F2F?
12:38:33 <phila> Seem fine to me
12:38:37 <Serena> +1
12:38:46 <michaelS> +1
12:38:50 <Sabrina> +1
12:38:57 <phila> RESOLUTION: Minutes of https://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes approved
12:39:00 <Sabrina> Minutes approved
12:39:07 <phila> Tpi
12:39:16 <phila> Topic: ODRL Information Model
12:39:24 <phila> s/Tpi//
12:39:29 <Sabrina> benws: Moving to the ODRL Information Model
12:40:06 <Sabrina> Ben lost connectivity... waiting for him to call back in
12:42:45 <Sabrina> Ben back
12:43:18 <phila> Issue 61 https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/61
12:43:21 <michaelS> q+
12:43:25 <Sabrina> Inverse target link - if you have lots of assets you are much more likely to point from the asset to the policy rather than visa versa
12:43:29 <phila> q+
12:43:31 <Sabrina> Any comments?
12:43:33 <smyles> smyles has joined #poe
12:44:19 <smyles> present+
12:44:22 <james_> james_ has joined #poe
12:44:28 <simonstey> present+
12:44:41 <Sabrina> michaelS: We did exactly something like this in the Music Standard. So the question is should this be a recommendation or rather just best practice?
12:45:18 <phila> s/Music/News/
12:46:42 <phila> q?
12:46:43 <Sabrina> michaelS: Shouldn't this be more advice rather than a recommendation.
12:46:44 <phila> ack m
12:47:10 <Sabrina> ...The question is who defines this?
12:47:26 <Sabrina> benws: We are looking for the inverse of the predicate
12:47:55 <Sabrina> michaelS: Where does this reside?
12:47:58 <simonstey> +q
12:48:02 <phila> ack me
12:49:24 <phila> phila: I'd say that dcterms:license is the way to link an asset to a Policy
12:49:29 <Sabrina> phila: I see what Michael is saying... I can see why people would use dcterms:license . It seems like the right thing to do.
12:49:35 <phila> ... It's a commonly used predicate, see, for example, DCAT
12:50:03 <Serena> +1 for dcterms:license
12:50:11 <Sabrina> simonstey: This is certainly not the inverse of ODRL:target
12:51:04 <Sabrina> simonstey: It is very often used in blank nodes where you don't have a permission i.e. rule blank node.
12:51:19 <phila> regrets+ James, Renato
12:51:35 <benws> q?
12:51:38 <phila> ack s
12:51:54 <phila> q+
12:51:57 <Sabrina> simonstey: Unless we move the target from the rules to the policy I would not recommend an inverse relationship
12:52:05 <renato> renato has joined #poe
12:52:16 <smyles> http://udfr.org/docs/onto/dct_license.html
12:52:16 <renato> (sorry - just arrived!)
12:52:27 <Sabrina> phila: You never know what type of document you get from the predicate. You can only find out from the MIME TYPE
12:53:06 <Sabrina> We might want to define text/ODRL
12:53:12 <benws> q?
12:53:30 <Sabrina> The predicate can't tell you what you get back....
12:53:35 <simonstey> ack phila
12:54:02 <renato> present+ renato
12:54:23 <Sabrina> phila: The URI has no semantics....The MIME TYPE tells you what the serialisation is...
12:54:34 <simonstey> +q
12:54:57 <Sabrina> phila: In summary dcterms:License is ok
12:55:24 <phila> phila: dcterms:License doesn't tell you what kind of doc you're going to get, that's the job of the MIME type.
12:55:35 <phila> phila: If this Wg wants to define its own MIME type, it can
12:55:43 <benws> q?
12:55:53 <simonstey> ack simonstey
12:55:56 <renato> q+
12:56:09 <Sabrina> simonstey: It doesn't make sense to point from the asset to a single rule.... All the rules together form the license...
12:56:35 <Sabrina> phila: So you would use dcterms:license to point to the policy
12:57:39 <Sabrina> renato: If we have an asset with dcterms:license pointing to a policy and that policy already has an asset in it. What do we do? How can we handle this?
12:57:40 <phila> regrets- Renato
12:57:55 <Sabrina> benws: I would add them together
12:58:08 <simonstey> <asset> dct:license/(odrl:permission|odrl:prohibition)* ?rules
12:58:42 <Sabrina> renato: Maybe we should consider the template policy - everything without the asset in it
12:58:42 <benws> q?
12:58:52 <benws> ack r
12:59:30 <Sabrina> Ben back
13:00:11 <michaelS> q+
13:00:26 <Sabrina> renato: My concern is if the policy you point to already has an asset, does the target URI referred to by dcterms:license would it overwrite the asset
13:00:31 <simonstey> +q
13:00:36 <smyles> q+
13:01:10 <Sabrina> benws: If you have target and targeted by and an inverse relationship then reasoning would just add them together
13:01:43 <Sabrina> renato: Assume that we are talking about a policy?
13:02:07 <Sabrina> benws: No keep it simple and just target a rule
13:02:43 <Sabrina> renato: The minimum referable entity is a policy, we can't have rules on their own
13:03:07 <simonstey> q?
13:04:16 <Sabrina> renato: The policy by definition has an asset. If there are 3 permissions then we have 3 assets. If we have an asset that refers to the policy what happens to the 3 assets that have already been defined
13:04:44 <Sabrina> benws: Is this relevant for an inverse of odrl:target
13:04:47 <simonstey> q-
13:04:52 <simonstey> ack michaelS
13:05:06 <Sabrina> renato: No, I am talking about something different
13:05:38 <renato> (old CC/ODRL Profile): https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/cc/
13:05:58 <Sabrina> michaelS: I recall a similar requirement in a creative commons license
13:06:01 <michaelS> q-
13:06:25 <simonstey> ack smyles
13:07:16 <Sabrina> smyles: dcterms:license is not a perfect fit, however I agree with Phil people will use it to point to a policy. There are no ids for permissions and restrictions
13:07:24 <renato> q+
13:08:16 <simonstey> +q
13:08:20 <Sabrina> benws: This requirements is about the ability to point from an asset to a permission. What do we think of this requirement?
13:08:29 <simonstey> q-
13:08:44 <Sabrina> smyles: Can you describe an example of how it would be used?
13:09:18 <smyles> q+
13:09:41 <Sabrina> benws: If you have 10,000 assets then it is very inefficient to point from the policy to the assets. It is far more efficient to point from the asset to the permission
13:10:04 <Sabrina> renato: Does this mean the permission does not have any reference to the asset in it?
13:10:13 <Sabrina> benws: Yes, this would be the case
13:10:26 <phila> q?
13:10:29 <phila> ack r
13:10:52 <simonstey> odrl:Set ?
13:10:56 <Sabrina> renato: The way ODRL was modelled was - I have a policy with an identifier and have references to assets and rules.
13:11:13 <Sabrina> renato: You could use a set
13:11:48 <Sabrina> benws: No it's not a set that it required. We want to point from the asset to the policy
13:11:53 <benws> q?
13:12:32 <Sabrina> simonstey: If you want to define a policy that does not have a target you could use an odrl:set
13:13:43 <Sabrina> simonstey: Is this an implementation issue. If you want to automatically evaluate the policy and you don't have an asset in the policy you would need some guidance as to where to look for the asset
13:14:07 <Sabrina> simonstey: This might work in an inhouse scenario but not in general
13:14:14 <Sabrina> benws: You just do a query
13:14:28 <Sabrina> simonstey: But what do you query?
13:14:56 <Sabrina> simonstey: You don't know what is pointing to the policy and therefore you don't know where to query
13:15:34 <phila> q+
13:15:37 <phila> ack s
13:16:02 <renato> XML encoding rules: http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#xml
13:16:35 <Sabrina> smyles: We have the same type of requirement and we lobbied for this is be included in the past. Possible suggestions reference to it over and over again, target optional, or whatever refers to it
13:16:57 <benws> q?
13:17:01 <phila> ack me
13:17:01 <Sabrina> smyles: I am in favour of solving this problem
13:17:12 <renato> PoWder !!!
13:17:19 <renato> :-)
13:18:15 <Sabrina> phila: This sounds very familiar. One set of metadata to an undefined thing and it is governed by whatever points to it
13:18:46 <Sabrina> phila: In POWDER it was possible to do this limited by domain name (i.e. put an outer wall on it)
13:18:48 <benws> q?
13:19:47 <Sabrina> renato: In order to solve the problem - given a policy that we want to use as the target for these statements - should we allow the policy not to have an asset in it
13:20:04 <simonstey> +q
13:20:32 <Brian_Ulicny> q+
13:20:42 <Sabrina> renato: from your asset list be it 50 million of them, we don't have any assets in the target policy
13:20:52 <Sabrina> benws: They are implicitly there
13:21:12 <simonstey> q?
13:21:32 <Sabrina> benws: If you were to materialise the triples then indeed the policy would have a target
13:21:40 <Sabrina> renato: In an implementation yes
13:22:53 <Sabrina> simonstey: An agreement policy is not only about the asset which is referred to by the rules, actually as far as I know you can have multiple assets in each rule. The same for assigner and assignees.
13:23:35 <Sabrina> simonstey: When you have 200 million assets you would have to repeat the assigner and assignee multiple times in each rule
13:23:57 <Sabrina> benws: This requirement does not refer to assigner and assignees
13:24:00 <benws> q?
13:24:21 <Sabrina> simonstey: But you would have to repeat this
13:24:48 <Sabrina> benws: Ya we would repeat asigners and assignees in the rules
13:25:05 <simonstey> Must contain at least the Party entity with Assigner role and a Party with Assignee role. The latter being granted the terms of the Agreement from the former.
13:25:15 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-odrl/#term-Agreement
13:26:07 <Sabrina> renato: When assets that refer to policies where there is no asset in the policy we need to indicate that this was done on purpose
13:26:35 <Sabrina> renato: otherwise people would expect an asset
13:26:44 <smyles> q+
13:26:45 <Sabrina> Brian_Ulicny: Can't we use a class here
13:26:50 <phila> ack s
13:26:51 <phila> ack b
13:26:56 <simonstey> ack simonstey
13:27:14 <renato> see "Asset: the Permission entity must refer to an Asset (where at least one, and only one, relation value is target) on which the linked Action should be performed (required)"
13:27:31 <renato> In the Information Model for Perms and Prohibs
13:28:05 <phila> Anything that points to this policy is covered by it
13:28:32 <phila> q+
13:28:55 <Sabrina> smyles: Couldn't we use a url to indicate a class. This is what we did at AP. We don't know the ids of the assets. We put in an identifier the meaning is that anything that points to this identifier is governed by the policy
13:29:59 <Sabrina> smyles: The processing engine needs to figure got if this asset is governed by this policy. We need an engine that can evaluate this.
13:30:10 <phila> q-
13:30:12 <Sabrina> benws: When in doubt add a level of indirection
13:30:38 <phila> Topic: F2F meeting
13:30:49 <Sabrina> benws: As our hour is up, we have to bypass the other items on the agenda
13:31:31 <Brian_Ulicny> Sorry.  Have to drop.
13:32:24 <phila> Proposal: F2F meeting 18-19 May 2017 in London
13:32:29 <Sabrina> renato: The F2F will now be in May - there are a number of events in London in May - so we propose the 18th and 19th of May in London
13:32:39 <benws> +1
13:32:40 <phila> (instead of Madrid or Vienna)
13:32:41 <phila> +1
13:32:44 <renato> +1
13:32:44 <Sabrina> +1
13:32:45 <ivan> =1
13:32:46 <smyles> +1
13:32:48 <simonstey> 0
13:32:50 <ivan> +1
13:33:09 <phila> Resolution: F2F meeting 18-19 May 2017 in London
13:33:36 <Sabrina> IPTC meeting will be held there....
13:34:13 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:34:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-poe-minutes.html phila
13:34:21 <phila> [Merry Christmas]
13:34:25 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:34:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-poe-minutes.html phila
15:34:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe
17:06:56 <benws> benws has joined #poe
17:13:01 <benws2> benws2 has joined #poe
18:22:28 <benws> benws has joined #poe