11:54:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
11:54:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-irc
11:54:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
11:54:55 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
11:54:57 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
11:54:57 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
11:54:58 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
11:54:59 <trackbot> Date: 04 April 2016
11:56:05 <phila> zakim, code?
11:56:05 <Zakim> I have been told this is https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m4a8e3a5032905e8ce9ef1f4b569fcc2e Or by phone +1-617-324-0000, access code: 648 497 127
11:57:18 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
11:57:23 <michaelS> present# michaelS
11:57:26 <magyarblip> magyarblip has joined #poe
11:58:13 <simonstey> present+ simonstey
11:58:15 <phila> phila has changed the topic to: agenda is at https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160404 access code: 648 497 127, password poe
11:58:38 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160404
11:58:43 <phila> chair: Renato
11:58:44 <renato> renato has joined #poe
11:59:04 <james> present+ james
11:59:12 <phila> present+ phila
11:59:16 <mmcrober> mmcrober has joined #poe
11:59:33 <victor> victor has joined #poe
11:59:36 <renato> present+ renato
11:59:46 <jo> present+ jo
11:59:51 <victor> present+ victor
11:59:53 <ivan> present+ ivan
12:00:11 <paulj> present+ paulj
12:00:23 <jo> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:00:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html jo
12:00:46 <phila> regrets+ whoever
12:00:47 <jo> rrsagent, make logs public
12:00:57 <renato> regrets+ Sabrina Kirrane
12:01:00 <phila> regrets- whoever
12:01:02 <jo> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:01:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html jo
12:01:06 <mmcrober> present+ mmcrober
12:01:26 <jo> present+ michaels
12:01:49 <magyarblip> present+ magyarblip
12:02:25 <simonstey> scribe: simonstey
12:03:13 <renato> agenda https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160404
12:03:15 <simonstey> topic: Preliminaries
12:03:16 <nandana> present+ nandana
12:03:37 <simonstey> renato: approval of last week's minutes
12:03:45 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/03/24-poe-minutes
12:04:01 <phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes
12:04:06 <phila> +1
12:04:08 <simonstey> +1
12:04:08 <mmcrober> +1
12:04:17 <james> +1
12:04:33 <phila> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes
12:04:33 <simonstey> topic: use case template
12:04:34 <magyarblip> +1
12:04:37 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases
12:04:44 <michaelS> +1
12:04:49 <simonstey> renato: michael proposed a first template
12:05:05 <magyarblip> something weird happening on webex - apparently i am now host
12:05:35 <renato> i am rejoining webex now too...
12:06:05 <benws> benws has joined #poe
12:06:10 <simonstey> [some issues with webex]
12:07:12 <simonstey> michaelS: the use case page now contains a uc template
12:07:13 <benws> present+ benws
12:07:28 <simonstey> ... inspired from other group's template
12:07:45 <simonstey> ... demographic information about uc owner
12:07:59 <renato> @phila how do I do that?
12:08:38 <simonstey> ... template also contains natural & formal language expression sections for describing the uc
12:08:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html phila
12:09:10 <renato> (done, I am host)
12:09:20 <simonstey> ... technical expression may include information relating to data model
12:09:53 <simonstey> ... based on that template, I've created an example uc
12:10:15 <phila> q+ to talk about process
12:11:10 <phila> ack me
12:11:10 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about process
12:11:12 <simonstey> ... the included "dummy use case" is actually a real world uc
12:12:01 <simonstey> phila: one thing that worried me was the fact that you said you had an offline discussion with james to set up the template
12:12:26 <magyarblip> q+
12:12:34 <simonstey> ... such discussions need to be made online/with consent of the group
12:12:38 <mmcrober> q+
12:12:53 <jo> q?
12:13:08 <simonstey> michaelS: do we need contact details for ucs?
12:13:31 <simonstey> phila: if you want to, that's good.. but it's not essential
12:14:07 <simonstey> ... the more real world a uc is, the better
12:15:09 <jo> ack mag
12:15:11 <simonstey> magyarblip: looking at the uc, it's way more extensive than I would have expected at this stage
12:15:36 <mmcrober> I'd echo that - it seems like an expression of how ODRL is actually used in practice, rather than a *desirable* usecase
12:15:52 <simonstey> renato: I think we should clearly state what parts are optional/mandatory
12:16:58 <simonstey> renato: we should try to express what we want to have/what we require, rather than already providing a solution
12:17:27 <mmcrober> ack me
12:17:44 <simonstey> mmcrober: I'm happy with the template
12:17:57 <simonstey> ... I would like to see a minimum dummy uc
12:18:39 <simonstey> ... I can provide research related ucs
12:19:05 <phila> action: Mo to provide use case from research and education domain
12:19:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Provide use case from research and education domain [on Mo McRoberts - due 2016-04-11].
12:19:07 <mmcrober> for info, the Research & Education Space I refer to is: https://bbcarchdev.github.io/res/
12:19:24 <simonstey> victor: we should also consider requirements
12:20:45 <phila> q+ to talk about Reqs
12:20:51 <simonstey> q+
12:21:28 <simonstey> phila: yes, requirements need to be explicit
12:21:41 <jo> ack phila
12:21:41 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Reqs
12:21:50 <simonstey> ... the same requirements can come from multiple ucs
12:21:51 <benws> q+
12:22:20 <simonstey> ... you may end up merging requirements, point to other requirements, ...
12:22:31 <simonstey> ... we should have them at the end of each uc
12:23:01 <phila> simonstey: Just think about what you said earlier about there being no new requirements. We need to somewhere make those old requiremetns explicit
12:23:30 <phila> ... No one knows all the old ODRL requirements. We can take tham as a basis and revise them, rather than just storing new requirements.
12:24:01 <simonstey> benws: I wanted to say we should distinguish between uc and requirements gathering
12:24:18 <simonstey> ... we shouldn't set the bar so high
12:24:22 <jo> q?
12:24:26 <jo> ack s
12:24:29 <jo> ack b
12:24:37 <simonstey> ... but should try to gather as much input as possible
12:25:23 <simonstey> renato: I think we should first collect use cases and in a later phase decide whether we want to keep them -> derive requirements
12:25:55 <simonstey> ... we should set an easy entry point for people to contribute
12:26:38 <simonstey> ... we might end up with removing the technical expression part
12:27:02 <simonstey> TOPIC: Use Case collection and review process
12:27:43 <phila> action: Renato to go to the ODRL CG to ask for use cases
12:27:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Go to the odrl cg to ask for use cases [on Renato Iannella - due 2016-04-11].
12:27:46 <simonstey> renato: should we make a wider call for use cases? e.g. ODRL community group or any other group?
12:27:56 <michaelS> q+
12:28:00 <phila> action: phila to gather use cases from BigDataEurope project
12:28:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Gather use cases from bigdataeurope project [on Phil Archer - due 2016-04-11].
12:28:20 <simonstey> ... or do we think we will have enough input from our group members?
12:28:29 <phila> Use cases can come from anywhere - and are welcome
12:28:37 <phila> It is then for the Wg to decide whether to act on them
12:28:44 <simonstey> michaelS: are we allowed to ask colleagues for suitable input?
12:29:43 <jo> q+ to wonder about the IP context around contribution of use cases
12:29:50 <phila> q+ to talk about public-poe-comments
12:30:01 <phila> ack m
12:30:07 <jo> ack me
12:30:07 <Zakim> jo, you wanted to wonder about the IP context around contribution of use cases
12:30:10 <simonstey> paulj: we may consider asking formally for external input
12:30:38 <phila> public-poe-comments@w3.org
12:30:46 <simonstey> jo: how can the group accept input from non-members?
12:30:53 <smyles> smyles has joined #poe
12:31:24 <simonstey> phila: I think it would be wise to ... [broke up]
12:31:50 <ivan> q+
12:31:57 <phila> ack p
12:31:57 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about public-poe-comments
12:31:58 <ivan> ack phila
12:32:06 <smyles> present+ smyles
12:32:08 <phila> Use cases are pretty free of IP
12:32:23 <simonstey> ivan: I think the question is really related to uc now, but the same question may also come up later
12:32:34 <phila> The danger might be that we include a load of reqs that can *only* be met by using a specific piece of software - then we'd be in trouble.
12:32:45 <simonstey> ... if someone external wants to contribute to the spec
12:33:04 <phila> Use Case doc is a Note (non-normative) so IP considerations are less important.
12:33:16 <simonstey> ... that's not relevant now, but keep in mind that it might come up later
12:33:35 <phila> q?
12:33:36 <jo> q?
12:33:37 <phila> ack i
12:33:40 <jo> q+
12:34:00 <phila> ack j
12:35:03 <simonstey> jo: can we formally note how external contributions shall be made
12:35:29 <phila> Summary - we don't need to be too concerned about IP issues related to the use case document due teo the nature of the document. However, the ideal method of submission is vai the public comments lailing list which carries some IP disclosure info.
12:35:55 <phila> s/ vai the public comments lailing/ via the public comments mailing
12:36:07 <phila> public-poe-comments
12:36:20 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ANyone (outside the grou) can corntribute use cases without there being an IP impediment, however it's alwyas best to contribute on public-poe-comments@w3,org
12:36:47 <phila> s/ANyone (outside the grou/Anyone (outside the group
12:36:56 <simonstey> +1
12:37:00 <phila> I think that's fair
12:37:07 <magyarblip> +1
12:37:09 <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Anyone (outside the group) can corntribute use cases without there being an IP impediment, however it's alwys best to contribute on public-poe-comments@w3.org
12:37:20 <ivan> +1
12:37:25 <james> james has joined #poe
12:37:26 <michaelS> +1
12:37:28 <phila> s/ corntribute/ contribute
12:37:56 <phila> RESOLVED: Anyone (outside the group) can contribute use cases without there being an IP impediment, however it's alwys best to contribute on public-poe-comments@w3.org
12:38:33 <simonstey> renato: wg members can create additional uc in the wiki
12:38:52 <simonstey> ... externals will be asked to provide their uc via mail using our template
12:39:10 <simonstey> ... we will then move them to the wiki
12:39:21 <mmcrober> q+
12:39:22 <magyarblip> i am going to reach out to the bisg (book industry standards group) who have been doing related work, not so much odrl as best practices for the industry
12:39:28 <michaelS> q+
12:39:38 <mmcrober> ack m
12:39:41 <phila> Yes, WG members should subscribe to the public comments list (it's not automatic)
12:39:43 <mmcrober> oh bother
12:40:07 <jo> q- mmcromber
12:40:10 <simonstey> mmcrober: may I propose to note that resolution on the uc wiki page?
12:40:17 <mmcrober> simonstey: yes please
12:40:17 <jo> q+ mSteidl
12:40:20 <michaelS> q-
12:40:21 <jo> ack mm
12:40:24 <magyarblip> +1 anything we can point folks to that introduces them *gently* to the area
12:41:18 <phila> Our wiki is only writable by WG members
12:41:21 <simonstey> renato: editing the wikipage is limited to whom exactly?
12:41:27 <simonstey> phila: only wg members can edit it
12:41:37 <phila> q?
12:42:04 <phila> ack m
12:42:29 <simonstey> michaelS: I'll update the uc page tomorrow
12:43:02 <simonstey> TOPIC: Deliverables
12:43:07 <simonstey> renato:
12:43:18 <simonstey> s/renato://
12:43:45 <simonstey> renato: in the charter we've listed 5 contributions
12:44:09 <simonstey> ... we wanted to get the core specs/recommendations out asap
12:44:53 <simonstey> ... we need to come up with editors for each of the 5 specs
12:45:31 <simonstey> ... the vocabulary and the ontology might be very similar contentwise
12:46:14 <simonstey> ... we might consider merging them into one document in order to avoid any update inconsistencies
12:47:15 <simonstey> ... the ontology would then become a normative document
12:48:14 <james> q+
12:48:36 <simonstey> ... I think it's probably reasonable to define the ontology as our normative basis (rather than xml schema)
12:49:02 <simonstey> ... we also have to decide on a name/versioning approach
12:49:54 <simonstey> james: what's the best approach to propose properties/concepts to be added to odrl?
12:50:21 <simonstey> renato: we should start using the mailing list more often
12:51:13 <simonstey> james: e.g. it would be nice to have a top level link to the target rather than referring to it in each permission/prohibition seperately
12:51:21 <benws> q+
12:51:25 <phila> q+ to say that sounds like an issue
12:51:34 <phila> ack j
12:51:40 <jo> q+ to say we should use issue tracking
12:52:02 <jo> q-
12:52:09 <simonstey> benws: james, you might should root that in a uc
12:52:27 <ivan> q+
12:52:28 <mmcrober> q+
12:52:34 <ivan> ack benws
12:52:39 <james> q+
12:52:47 <phila> ack me
12:52:47 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to say that sounds like an issue
12:53:03 <simonstey> ... we might want to reconsider whether we really want to use an ontology as normative basis for our language
12:53:26 <simonstey> phila: the action tracker is also an issue tracker
12:53:50 <phila> issue: The number of times we need to refer to the target
12:53:50 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-1 - The number of times we need to refer to the target.  Please complete additional details at <https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/1/edit>.
12:54:09 <phila> close issue-1
12:54:10 <trackbot> Closed issue-1.
12:54:26 <renato> q
12:54:28 <james> sounds good thanks @phila
12:54:36 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-duv/ DUB Voc
12:55:28 <simonstey> phila: you can put multiple examples in multiple encodings in the spec
12:55:38 <simonstey> +q
12:55:42 <simonstey> -q
12:55:54 <jo> q+ to make a comment about normative encodings
12:56:19 <jo> q+ also to echo victor's point about verbosity being an issue or not
12:56:22 <simonstey> ivan: having gone through several groups having the same issues as ben mentioned
12:56:24 <ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/
12:57:29 <james> q- json/json-ld point already made
12:57:36 <james> q-
12:58:45 <simonstey> ... [explaining how web-annotation group handled that issue -> json(-ld) based]
12:59:14 <phila> ack i
12:59:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html phila
12:59:34 <phila> ack m
12:59:57 <simonstey> mmcrober: the current ontology document is pretty RDF skewed
13:00:11 <jo> q-
13:00:24 <ivan> q+
13:01:17 <phila> zakim, close queue
13:01:17 <Zakim> ok, phila, the speaker queue is closed
13:01:21 <simonstey> ... I think we could beef up the ontology document pretty straight forward once we have the underlying links/connections to the other specs
13:01:58 <simonstey> ivan: the real description of the model is only done once in the json-ld spec
13:02:40 <simonstey> ... we do not repeat the human prose
13:03:48 <simonstey> topic: F2F meeting
13:03:49 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Attending_F2F1
13:04:08 <simonstey> renato: if you know that you'll be able to attend the f2f meeting, please add your name
13:04:40 <victor> In the next call, I would like to see dicussed the need of a test bed / compliance document (or section within existing documents).
13:04:44 <victor> will post in the list
13:04:45 <victor> ciao!
13:04:56 <james> thanks.
13:05:02 <phila> Thanks everyone, bye.
13:05:03 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:05:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-minutes.html phila
13:05:05 <nandana> bye
13:05:52 <jo> jo has left #poe
13:47:24 <phila> phila has joined #poe
13:59:46 <phila> zakim, bye
13:59:46 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been simonstey, james, phila, renato, jo, victor, ivan, paulj, mmcrober, michaels, magyarblip, nandana, benws, smyles
13:59:46 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe
13:59:51 <phila> RRSAgent, bye
13:59:51 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-actions.rdf :
13:59:51 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Mo to provide use case from research and education domain [1]
13:59:51 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-irc#T12-19-05
13:59:51 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Renato to go to the ODRL CG to ask for use cases [2]
13:59:51 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-irc#T12-27-43
13:59:51 <RRSAgent> ACTION: phila to gather use cases from BigDataEurope project [3]
13:59:51 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/04/04-poe-irc#T12-28-00