12:25:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:25:13 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/08-poe-irc
12:25:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:25:15 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:25:17 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
12:25:17 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:25:18 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:25:18 <trackbot> Date: 08 May 2017
12:25:31 <ivan> Chair: renato
12:25:49 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170508
12:26:01 <renato> present+ renato
12:26:04 <ivan> Regrets: Ben, Sabrina
12:28:36 <ivan> present+
12:30:44 <victor> victor has joined #poe
12:30:55 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
12:31:16 <victor> present+ victor
12:31:45 <phila> present+
12:31:52 <michaelS> present+
12:32:02 <CarolineB> CarolineB has joined #poe
12:33:05 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170508
12:33:34 <phila> scribe: phila
12:33:40 <phila> scribeNick: phila
12:33:45 <CarolineB> present+CarolineB
12:34:01 <simonstey> present+
12:34:10 <phila> Topic: Preliminaries
12:34:36 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2017/04/24-poe-minutes
12:34:45 <phila> Proposed: Accept minutes of 24 April https://www.w3.org/2017/04/24-poe-minutes
12:34:52 <michaelS> +11
12:34:53 <phila> RESOLUTION: Accepted minutes of 24 April https://www.w3.org/2017/04/24-poe-minutes
12:35:16 <phila> Topic: Deliverables
12:35:29 <phila> renato: Need to discuss some of the GH issues
12:35:36 <phila> ... We have had some reviews
12:35:51 <phila> ... Next week is the F2F on Thursday/Friday so we need to look at the agenda
12:36:10 <phila> ... Shouldn't forget about our Notes
12:36:35 <phila> ... I'm assuming that we won't have a Monday call as we're meeting at the end of the week
12:36:45 <victor> ..anyway Monday is a day-off in Madrid.
12:37:19 <phila> renato: We had progress on wide review
12:37:35 <phila> ... i18n have asked for another week.
12:37:45 <phila> ... Not expecting any show stoppers
12:37:46 <smyles> smyles has joined #poe
12:37:51 <renato> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-comments/2017Apr/
12:37:53 <phila> renato: Had some feedback...
12:38:09 <phila> ... Comments from Antoine Isaac and Lars Svensson
12:38:19 <smyles> present+
12:39:01 <phila> renato: I've added those comments into the GH issue tracker
12:39:09 <phila> ... So everythinbg is in GH
12:39:50 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/projects/1
12:40:05 <phila> renato: That shows you a visualisation of the issues
12:40:30 <phila> ... Last column means it has been completed and will be closed.
12:41:01 <phila> phila: Will be interested to see how this works - I can see this approach being very useful and widely adopted. Thanks renato
12:41:40 <phila> renato: The ones that were sent in recently... about half have been completed (the easy ones)
12:41:51 <phila> ... Editorial and simple ones have been addressed.
12:41:59 <phila> q+
12:42:20 <phila> renato: If solutions in col 3 are OK then we can go ahead
12:42:47 <phila> renato: We decided to look at the ones marked for WG discussion.
12:42:48 <phila> q-
12:42:51 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Needs+WG+Decision%22
12:43:10 <phila> renato: Those are the ones earmarked for WG decision
12:43:45 <phila> -> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/156 Issue 156
12:44:20 <phila> renato: Asking which requirements in the UCR have been met.
12:44:47 <phila> ... Simon has suggested opening submission of new use cases.
12:45:26 <phila> simonstey: I'm fine with reopening this, but if we allow Antoine to add new use cases, wed have to allow everyone.
12:45:50 <phila> simonstey: We may decide to re-factor his use cases
12:45:57 <phila> q+
12:46:04 <phila> ack me
12:46:18 <simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/156
12:46:29 <victor> In any case, UC or not, RightsStatements.org provides 12 standardized rights statements. I believe it would be a nice idea to try to model each of the 12 rights statements.
12:46:55 <simonstey> Also not all requirements for use cases have been captured. To start with, the RightsStatements.org case could be used to motivate more requirements. In addition to the current focus, rightsstatements.org can articulate other use cases paired with existing requirements, namely:
12:47:24 <simonstey>      POE.R.V.15 - for our statements NoC-CR and NoC-OKLR     Perhaps new entries under POE.R.E (Encoding) following our use of relatedURL parameter for statements that need a link to a human-readable legal piece     Documenting cases of rights status expiry, which is perhaps relevant to POE.R.DM.06     Would you accept new/revised use cases?
12:47:28 <renato> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-comments/2017Apr/0005.html
12:48:04 <phila> phila: If Antoine is saying that ODRL doesn't cover Europeana's use cases, then I would urge the WG to take his words on board unless it means a complete rewwrite
12:48:44 <phila> renato: So Simon is saying that we should reopen the UC docment?
12:50:18 <simonstey> he asks several times "Would you accept new/revised use cases?"
12:51:48 <phila> phila: We can use the evidence of Antoine's e-mail as the basis for adding in features to the spec, without necessarily reopening the UCR
12:52:00 <phila> renato: Next one
12:52:02 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/154
12:52:11 <phila> -> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/154 Issue 154
12:52:18 <simonstey> RESOLUTION: accept revised use cases from europeana
12:52:49 <phila> renato: Current type is a property. Proposal is to make it a subclass, which is how the OWL shows it anyway.
12:53:00 <phila> renato: Simon, Vico#r and I are OK with that.
12:53:12 <simonstey> +q
12:53:13 <phila> renato: Next  - Set is a policy type is a bucket for anything.
12:53:17 <phila> ... No other semantics
12:53:34 <phila> ... Question is, do we need it, since it is really a synonym for Policy
12:54:07 <phila> ... We could say that is we don't say it's an agreement etc then it's just a Policy. We can deprecate Set.
12:54:09 <victor> q+
12:54:17 <michaelS> q+
12:54:18 <phila> renato: Bit of a change to the current model
12:54:21 <phila> ack simonstey
12:54:40 <phila> simonstey: I initially raised that issue - we treat types of policies more or less the same.
12:54:56 <phila> ... But we never reference those types of policies
12:55:03 <phila> ... They're introduced in the vocabulary
12:55:16 <smyles> q+
12:55:22 <phila> ... In the ontology, we treat them the same. We have a Policy class and then sub classes
12:55:34 <phila> ... It continues on as policy types have different semantics
12:55:47 <phila> ... If you have an agreement, you need an assigner and an assignee.
12:55:54 <phila> .... Not true for all policy types
12:56:04 <phila> q+ to talk about policy rules
12:56:30 <phila> simonstey: We use the sub class arrow in the diagram which doesn't match the RDF meaning of sub class
12:56:43 <phila> ... So I'm all for deprecating Set
12:56:45 <phila> ack v
12:56:50 <phila> victor: I'd like to support Simon
12:57:15 <phila> ... I believe that we need to keep Set as it is different from a request
12:57:28 <phila> ... but we can say that by default, a policy is a Set
12:57:45 <phila> renato: So rather than deprecate, we just say it's the default
12:57:59 <phila> michaelS: I can see in the RightsML spec, that the preferred policy type is Set
12:58:11 <phila> ... Some contexts don't align  with other policy types
12:58:33 <phila> ... If we want to go beyond the existing policy types., this would be OK with RightsML
12:58:37 <phila> q-
12:58:45 <phila> ack michaelS
12:58:55 <simonstey> :Agreement 	a rdfs:Class , owl:Class ; 	rdfs:isDefinedBy odrl: ; 	rdfs:subClassOf :Policy ;
12:59:02 <simonstey> :Permission 	a rdfs:Class , owl:Class ; 	rdfs:isDefinedBy odrl: ; 	rdfs:subClassOf :Rule ;
12:59:04 <phila> michaelS: Flexible ... if a type doesn't exist then Set is the default. I'm happy with that.
12:59:18 <phila> smyles: I was going to say that RightsML recommends Set
12:59:40 <phila> ... If you take away Set as a value and make type not a required property, what is the meaning... what's the default value.
12:59:59 <phila> ... It sounds like Victor's proposal is that we keep Set but as the default.
13:00:05 <phila> q+
13:00:12 <phila> ack sm]
13:00:15 <smyles> q-
13:00:15 <phila> ack sm
13:01:35 <phila> ack me
13:01:57 <phila> phila: Every time we make a statement about cardinality, we need to provide tests.
13:02:08 <phila> victor (too quiet)
13:02:25 <phila> renato: We're going to have to create tests for everything, yes.
13:02:29 <simonstey> +q
13:02:38 <phila> axck s
13:02:40 <phila> axk s
13:02:43 <phila> ack s
13:03:00 <phila> simonstey: Your point, Phil, is that those constraints, our test suite has to be able to test for that
13:05:43 <phila> simonstey: Suggests that odrl:Policy is the default. Set is just another tyope that doesn't have an further restrictions. That won't break any compatibility with RightsML. But we wouldn't have to provide test cases.
13:07:51 <phila> [Discussion about things like type that don't appear in RDF version]
13:08:39 <phila> renato: We can do the sub classing, and in the XML encoding, then xml:type is how you assert a sub class of a policy
13:09:15 <phila> ... It's moving the mapping from 1-1 (XML) to be more class and property based so the XML encoding is what has to be called out separately.
13:09:22 <phila> [scribe paraphrase]
13:09:50 <phila> simonstey: I think we need to explain the differences between the types in more detail in the model, not just the vocab.
13:10:02 <phila> renato: So, things like agreement specified in the model.
13:10:11 <phila> simonstey: Yes, we have specs for that. They need to be in the model
13:10:34 <phila> ... A request has to have two parties etc.
13:10:48 <phila> +1 to Simon
13:11:18 <phila> simonstey: We don't allow someone to instantiate odrl: Policy. Things like odrl:Agreement only appears as a line in the vocab.
13:11:34 <phila> simonstey: I see no reason not to have this in the model. details of each Policy type
13:11:39 <phila> phila: +1 to simonstey
13:12:30 <phila> simonstey: We don't move them, but we replicate the info. We currently treat Rules and Policies differently. For some reason, policy types are only discussed in the vocab.
13:14:08 <phila> renato: I'd like to suggest 2 more WG decisions... I think we can either discuss those at the F2F or do it via GH issues.
13:14:22 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/139
13:14:26 <phila> simonstey: I thought we'd agreed that we can remove the undefined actions section and mechanism?
13:15:02 <phila> simonstey: I though wed discussed it fully.
13:15:39 <phila> ... There's this part about undefined actions... how should unsupported actions be processed? I think this is a very specific issue that doesn't need to be defined by us.
13:15:48 <phila> renato: I think there is consensus in that direction.
13:16:31 <phila> smyles: I agree with removing that section about undefined actions. The Policy should state whether to ignore undefined actions. Are we going to provide advice to implementers?
13:16:38 <phila> renato: I guess we should
13:16:54 <phila> smyles: Implementers need to know what to do I think [paraphrase]
13:17:13 <phila> simonstey: But again, I might ignore every action I don't understand.
13:17:29 <phila> ... This again relates to what an ODRL processor is?
13:17:40 <phila> ... That's def a discussion for the F2F
13:18:08 <phila> smyles: The concept of a processing engine andwhat that means.
13:18:26 <phila> ... In HTM< it makes sense to say ignore what you don't understand, but that may not apply in ODRL.
13:18:37 <phila> s/HTM</HTML/
13:18:44 <phila> Topic: F2F Agenda
13:18:50 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
13:18:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/08-poe-minutes.html phila
13:18:57 <phila> renato: The F2F meeting...
13:19:03 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:London2017
13:19:22 <phila> renato: Logistically, we start at 10:00 on Thursday
13:20:05 <phila> phila: +1 to earlier start and finish on Friday
13:20:26 <simonstey> +q
13:20:27 <phila> renato: We'll go through the outstanding issues and hope to resolve them and change the docs.
13:20:44 <phila> ... So by the end of Thursday, hopefully the docs will be updated and all issues resolved.
13:20:54 <phila> ... Not sure we need to say more than that in the agenda.
13:21:15 <phila> ... Then day 2 was to look at CR exit criteria
13:21:21 <phila> ... Then there are the 2 Notes
13:21:29 <phila> ... We may not finish Thursday until during Friday
13:21:41 <phila> ... So it's a fluid agenda at the moment
13:21:59 <phila> renato: So Simon... for the formal semantic note, is there stuff you want to go through?
13:22:09 <victor> q+
13:22:10 <phila> ack simonstey
13:22:29 <phila> simonstey: I think before we even start going through the individual issues, we should discuss what an ODRL processor is.
13:22:31 <simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/161
13:22:45 <phila> ... It's relevant for individual issues, the test suite, the semantics etc.
13:22:55 <phila> ... We need to know clearly what an ODRL processor has to do.
13:22:56 <ivan> +1 to simonstey
13:23:02 <phila> phila: +1 to simonstey
13:23:19 <michaelS> +1
13:23:21 <phila> simonstey: So I suggest we start by defining an ODRL processor. And then go on to issues.
13:23:48 <phila> renato: I've added it to Thursday's agenda.
13:23:56 <phila> q+
13:24:07 <victor> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Best_Practices
13:24:12 <phila> michaelS: I would call it requirements for a processor
13:24:36 <phila> victor: 2 ideas. On the BP Note - Ben and I have had a meeting. I've opened a wiki page to collect examples
13:25:03 <phila> victor: And regarding the semantics, we had only 1 meeting so far. The topic was defining what an ODRL Processor was.
13:25:17 <phila> ... Contradiction between policies etc.
13:25:26 <phila> ... I think this needs discussion across the group in London
13:26:22 <phila> phila: Lots to discuss - should we start at 09:00 Thursday?
13:26:46 <phila> [Folks arriving on Wednesday]
13:26:55 <phila> renato: So we can start at 09:00 on Thursday
13:27:35 <phila> michaelS: Is there a draft for the semantics Note yet?
13:27:37 <phila> simonstey: No.
13:28:01 <phila> q+
13:28:03 <phila> ack v
13:29:57 <phila> ack me
13:30:02 <phila> Topic: AOB
13:30:14 <phila> [None]
13:30:21 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:30:36 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
13:30:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/08-poe-minutes.html phila