11:59:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
11:59:15 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-poe-irc
11:59:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
11:59:17 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
11:59:19 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
11:59:19 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
11:59:20 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
11:59:20 <trackbot> Date: 18 April 2016
11:59:39 <renato> present+ renato
11:59:43 <simonstey> present+
11:59:44 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
11:59:49 <victor> victor has joined #poe
12:00:17 <paulj> paulj has joined #poe
12:00:23 <simonstey> present+ Sabrina
12:00:42 <michaelS> present+ michaelS
12:00:50 <jo> present+ jo
12:00:53 <james> present+ james
12:00:55 <victor> present+ victor
12:01:05 <paulj> present+ paulj
12:02:29 <renato> ivan...will u join us on the call?
12:02:57 <renato> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Main_Page
12:03:26 <ivan> Present+
12:03:58 <ivan> present+ ivan
12:04:02 <phila> present+ phila
12:04:18 <phila> scribe: james
12:04:41 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/04/11-poe-minutes
12:04:43 <james> getting a lot of noise
12:04:55 <benws> benws has joined #poe
12:05:21 <smyles> smyles has joined #poe
12:05:24 <benws> present+ benws
12:05:30 <smyles> present+ smyles
12:06:22 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160418
12:06:28 <phila> chair: Renato
12:06:36 <phila> regrets+ Mo
12:06:51 <jo> scribe: james
12:07:20 <phila> RESOLUTION: Accepted last week's minutes
12:07:37 <michaelS> +1
12:07:39 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases
12:07:39 <phila> Topic: Ise Cases
12:07:42 <james> First item: use cases
12:07:46 <phila> s/Ise/Use
12:08:06 <ivan> q+
12:08:11 <phila> renato: We have 3 use cass so far, more are promised
12:08:13 <james> Use cases from victor and phil
12:08:49 <michaelS> q+
12:09:03 <james> Renato:Going to look at use cases in more detail
12:09:12 <phila> regrets+ Caroline, Serena
12:09:23 <phila> ivan: There is a group related to this in the BSIG
12:09:45 <phila> ... mainly US-based industrial get together of the publishing world. They have a group on rights, rights management etc.
12:09:57 <phila> ... they promised me that they'd come with some use cases
12:10:08 <phila> q- ivan
12:10:18 <james> Ivan: BISG  book publishing world, Ivan has been talking to regarding use cases, hopefully something will be forthcoming.
12:10:48 <james> Ivan: would be good if one of their members joined this group
12:11:00 <phila> ack m
12:11:56 <james> thanks
12:12:06 <michaelS> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases
12:12:17 <michaelS> http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/
12:13:01 <james> michaelS: discusses workflow for requirements
12:13:18 <michaelS> q- michaelS
12:13:49 <james> renato: if deliverable, needs to end up in Github. Wiki is good for scratch area.
12:14:17 <james> renato: working group can decide what it prefers
12:14:21 <jo> q+ to comment on editorial role/process
12:15:08 <phila> ack j
12:15:08 <Zakim> jo, you wanted to comment on editorial role/process
12:15:41 <ivan> +1 to Jo
12:15:48 <phila> Jo is correct
12:17:15 <james> jo: feel that its upto the Editor.  Role of Editor is to gather the requirements by any means and with consensus with group.  Editor to find methodology, as long as the group can work along
12:17:16 <phila> +1 to what Jo is saying
12:17:50 <simonstey> q+
12:17:54 <phila> Again, +1 to Jo
12:18:02 <james> renato: Formal note, or happy editing wiki?
12:18:23 <james> jo: formal note preferred
12:18:38 <james> simonstey: important to have a formal note
12:18:38 <benws> +1 to jo and Simon
12:18:39 <phila> And it's in the charter https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/charter#deliverables
12:18:47 <simonstey> ack simonstey
12:21:03 <james> phila: There is wriggle room, this first draft could be a primer. But thinks we need formal note, cite where they came from if possible. Trail is useful, feeds into requirements verification.
12:21:49 <james> TOPIC: Use Case 01
12:22:19 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#POE.UC.01_Permissions_and_obligations_for_language_resources UC 01
12:22:56 <michaelS> q+ michaelS
12:23:33 <james> michaelS: What is meant by standard license?
12:23:42 <phila> phila has changed the topic to: P&OE Weekly https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m6a2ed89c47904b6c81be77af6d75316c, meeting ID 648 497 127 +1-617-324-0000 US Toll Number
12:24:26 <james> victor: a templated offer
12:24:27 <phila> q+ To ask about cascading licenses
12:25:05 <james> q+
12:25:37 <phila> ack m
12:25:39 <phila> ack me
12:25:39 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about cascading licenses
12:25:41 <james> michaelS: so cc for example, is this template or not.
12:25:43 <michaelS> q- michaelS
12:25:50 <smyles> q+
12:26:23 <james> phila: cascading license, akin to CSS where you change just a couple of necessary values
12:26:36 <james> victor: yes.
12:26:50 <jo> q+ to note the difference between pluggable values and cascading ...
12:27:06 <james> phila: is this a machine inherited thing, or just filling in gaps
12:27:12 <james> victor: simple
12:27:32 <phila> q?
12:27:32 <james> victor: simple process, just fill in blanks rather
12:27:57 <jo> q-
12:27:58 <phila> james: CC weas mentioned earlier, how a single licence (policy cf offer)
12:28:17 <phila> james: An offer would be a set if permissions and obligations, which is transacted upon and turned into an agreement.
12:28:34 <phila> ... CC is broader, not sure how that fits in. I know there is a CC profile in ODRL
12:29:08 <phila> victor: Not I understood the question correctly. Why is the ODRL profile not sufficient?
12:29:49 <phila> james: It may be, but the workflow we have at the moment is that the offer is transformed into an agreement. I wonder whether we need to be clearer about the terminology
12:30:10 <benws> q+ benws
12:30:13 <phila> james: People think in terms of an open statement, then thare the offers that you need to agree to before processding.
12:30:22 <phila> ... Could be one worflow or multiple ines
12:30:37 <jo> q+
12:30:46 <phila> victor: Not thought about that. We have software that writes ODRL agreements, they could perhaps be digitally signed
12:31:08 <phila> benws: Surely an offer becomes an agreement after it's signed?
12:31:16 <phila> james: That's what we're working with in our workflow
12:31:35 <phila> benws: Might be worth asking the WG - if you want something legally binding, it has to be through an agreement.
12:31:46 <phila> ack j
12:31:50 <phila> ack smyles
12:31:56 <jo> ack james
12:31:59 <jo> q+ jo
12:32:15 <benws> ack b
12:33:35 <james_> james_ has joined #poe
12:33:45 <james_> sorry dropped out
12:34:10 <renato> q?
12:34:11 <james_> smyles: asked question: editor missed this
12:34:51 <james_> victor: could not express everything.. ?
12:35:50 <phila> ack jo
12:36:04 <james_> smyles: payment varying may be outside of ODRL
12:36:46 <james_> jo: Are we assuming POE is for announcing permission and obligations, or a negotiation system
12:37:10 <renato> q+
12:37:27 <phila> q+
12:37:42 <james_> Templates are useful and powerful, but stepping into realm of negotiation system, and do we have an appetite or not?
12:38:27 <james_> renato: we did look into this many years ago (negotiation).
12:39:01 <phila> ack r
12:39:08 <phila> ack me
12:39:08 <james_> renato: ... previously negotiation was offline and spec did not go into the details.
12:40:02 <victor> I have stopped hearing Phil. Is it only me?
12:40:16 <benws> I hear him
12:40:25 <renato> Phil is loud and clear
12:40:25 <victor> ok. i hear again. thanks.
12:41:02 <james_> phila: The discussion of legal enforcement goes beyond our remit.  It does not mean what is expressed with the output of this group can not be used to do just that.
12:41:07 <michaelS> q+
12:41:41 <james_> phila: Legal stuff is a different level, and probably beyond our skill set .. Legal.
12:41:43 <benws> q+
12:41:46 <jo> q+
12:41:51 <phila> ack m
12:42:20 <benws> q-
12:43:01 <james_> michaelS: For online news, implicit agreement necessary, otherwise too slow for such a use case
12:43:03 <phila> q+
12:43:13 <phila> ack jo
12:44:03 <james_> jo: Its made clear Legal Enforcement is out of scope. But what are we trying to achieve, can we make it clearer.
12:45:28 <james_> jo: Are we broadcasting the statements, or is the basis of negotiation and bi-party agreements
12:46:05 <jo> is it possible to have an exchange of the form:
12:46:19 <jo> "Dear Pig, are you willing to sell for one shilling Your ring?"
12:46:21 <jo> Said the Piggy, "I will."
12:46:32 <jo> http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/43188
12:47:22 <renato> q+
12:47:32 <benws> q+
12:48:15 <phila> ack me
12:48:27 <benws> q-
12:48:35 <james_> phila: Keep the legal out of spec, T&C's are on top,
12:49:07 <benws> q+
12:49:08 <james_> renato: Implementations can layer the legal agreements on top
12:49:15 <phila> ack r
12:49:18 <phila> ack b
12:49:56 <james_> benws: Is it keep the legal out of spec, or keep Enforcement out of spec?
12:50:20 <simonstey> doesn't the precise meaning of "legally binding" also depend on individual countries (their legislations) ?
12:50:55 <james_> phila: Is the charter clear enough, the boundary on where we tread.
12:51:28 <james_> renato: Can use cases flush out the boundaries, we can pick and choose which ones we cover and do not.
12:52:09 <phila> +1 to detailed user cases
12:52:14 <james_> benws: Use case also help clarify what we are building as per Jo's question
12:52:15 <Sabrina> +1 to Renato's suggestion to wait until we have uses cases
12:52:25 <renato> q?
12:53:15 <james_> renato: We need more detail on Use Case 01 particularly on the Abilities listed
12:53:18 <michaelS> q+
12:53:34 <james_> renato: Victor are you able to give more details?
12:53:37 <james_> victor: yes
12:54:04 <james_> michaelS: How could we communicate about use cases between calls?
12:54:10 <renato> action: victor add more example Use Cases for POE.UC.01
12:54:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Add more example use cases for poe.uc.01 [on Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel - due 2016-04-25].
12:54:57 <victor> +1 to michael
12:55:03 <james_> renato: emails on community list
12:56:56 <james_> renato: We will continue with some more use case analysis next week
12:57:01 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements
12:57:21 <james_> renato: How do we go about actually analysing requirements
12:58:35 <jo> q?
12:58:44 <james_> renato: on actions, all to do with use cases
12:58:56 <phila> ack mi
12:59:09 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:59:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-poe-minutes.html phila
12:59:20 <james_> renato: need more use cases, please submit, hopefully by end of this month
12:59:32 <james_> renato: AIB?
12:59:38 <james_> renato: AOB
13:00:08 <michaelS> present- michaelS
13:00:17 <james_> renato: meeting closed
13:00:18 <simonstey> present+ michaelS
13:00:30 <james_> thanks all
13:00:38 <jo> jo has left #poe
13:00:46 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:00:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-poe-minutes.html phila
14:02:54 <benws> quit
14:20:34 <ivan> ivan has joined #poe
15:09:59 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe