11:57:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
11:57:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-irc
11:57:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
11:57:58 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
11:58:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
11:58:00 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
11:58:01 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
11:58:01 <trackbot> Date: 16 May 2016
11:58:03 <james> james has joined #poe
11:58:11 <phila> zakim, code?
11:58:11 <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
11:58:19 <phila> phila has changed the topic to: Agenda for 2016-05-09 https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160516
11:58:42 <simonstey> present+
11:58:55 <jo> jo has changed the topic to: Agenda for 2016-05-16 https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160516
11:59:25 <renato> present+
11:59:40 <jo> present+ Jo
11:59:51 <phila> present+ phila
12:00:02 <jo> regrets+ caroline
12:00:13 <phila> regrets+ Ivan
12:00:39 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160516
12:00:41 <phila> chair: Ben
12:01:37 <benws> benws has joined #poe
12:01:38 <smyles> smyles has joined #poe
12:02:06 <james> present+ james
12:02:12 <magyarblip> magyarblip has joined #poe
12:03:05 <simonstey> regrets+ SabrinaKirrane
12:03:53 <smyles> present+ smyles
12:04:52 <jo> scribe: jo
12:05:09 <benws> present+ benws
12:05:58 <jo> benws: ltos of people missing because of hiolidays in (the rest of) europe
12:06:08 <jo> s/ltos/lots
12:06:17 <jo> topic: Minutes of last meeting
12:06:35 <jo> PROPOSAL: Agree minutes of last meeting https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes
12:06:38 <renato> +1
12:06:41 <smyles> +1
12:06:42 <phila> 0 wasn't there
12:06:42 <benws> +1
12:06:46 <magyarblip> +1
12:06:55 <james> +1
12:07:02 <jo> RESOLUTION: Agree minutes of last meeting https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes
12:07:32 <jo> Topic: Naming of the standard
12:07:53 <jo> benws: This is the name that the standard will go by, not the namespace
12:08:20 <jo> ... can't call it Open Digital Rights, let's clarify the sensitivity
12:08:33 <smyles> q+
12:08:44 <jo> phila: W3C is not saying the word rights is a problem, it's the community that says it is
12:08:58 <renato> q+
12:08:59 <jo> ... we can say that ODRL does not stand for anything
12:09:30 <jo> ... I don't feel strongly, the only people who have said it's a problem are members of the ODRL community
12:10:00 <jo> smyles: IPTC IPTC decided to call it's effort based on ODRL RightsML
12:10:10 <jo> ... tells people what it is about, or what it is for
12:10:25 <jo> ... not immediately clear what ODRL stands for
12:10:30 <benws> q?
12:10:41 <jo> ... can we come up with a name that is more secriptive
12:10:52 <jo> ... want to stick with odrl as a namespace
12:11:09 <jo> benws: is it important that the name has meaning
12:11:14 <jo> smayles: yes
12:11:26 <jo> s/smayles/smyles
12:11:53 <jo> renato: my preference is to continue to use ODRl - it has a long history
12:12:06 <jo> s/ODRl/ODRL/
12:12:14 <magyarblip> only do right language?
12:12:22 <jo> ... don't see it as a problem if the meaning of the letters is not stated
12:12:35 <jo> q?
12:12:39 <jo> ack s
12:12:41 <jo> ack r
12:13:24 <jo> magyarblip: historical artefact, you do forget what these things mean, don't see the issue, already well-known
12:13:37 <jo> benws: anyone else?
12:13:56 <jo> ... seems eccentric to call something by an acronym that dare not speak its name
12:14:04 <jo> ... do want people to talk about it
12:14:12 <renato> q+
12:14:14 <jo> ... name should have a resonance
12:14:46 <jo> ... uptake is only a fraction of what it will be and would prefer to find a different name
12:15:10 <jo> ... finding it impossible to change the name when discussing to POE
12:15:15 <phila> q+
12:15:27 <jo> ack p
12:16:10 <jo> phila: don't have a strong view, however if we stick with ODRL, then fact that R stands for Rights creates a problem that we may have to change later
12:16:26 <jo> ... do we think that R is a problem in any community
12:16:53 <jo> ... we made several attempts at naming this group L for Licensing etc etc etc
12:17:17 <jo> ... no one is particularly happy with POE
12:17:18 <benws> q?
12:17:28 <jo> ... don't want to have to back-track
12:18:07 <jo> ... W3C is facing lots of problem with Encrypted Media Extensions
12:18:33 <jo> ... we don't want to get engaged with that kind of distraction if we can avoid it
12:18:36 <phila> s/problem/comments/
12:18:43 <Brian_Ulicny> Brian_Ulicny has joined #poe
12:19:07 <jo> renato: RightsML is a profile of ODRL, the idea was to create profiles and they can name it what they want
12:19:33 <jo> ... if we called it foobar then it wouyld still be about right
12:19:45 <jo> s/wouyld/would
12:20:05 <jo> ... the controversy about EME is nothing to do with it being called EME, after all
12:20:18 <benws> q?
12:20:23 <jo> s/about right/about rights/
12:20:29 <jo> ack r
12:20:49 <jo> ... the name won't make any difference to any controversy it may attract
12:21:10 <jo> benws: I think the name makes a lot of difference around uptake at least
12:21:44 <jo> ... also what is nice about POE is that it is clear that it is about "Expression" not "Enforcement" of rights
12:21:59 <Brian_Ulicny> I'm happy with POE as the name, but still using odrl as namespace etc for historical reasons
12:22:07 <jo> ... and people do jump to the conclusion that ODRL is about enforcement
12:22:08 <benws> q?
12:22:11 <smyles> http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html "there are two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors"
12:22:37 <jo> benws: straw poll time
12:23:08 <Brian_Ulicny> No
12:23:16 <benws> -1
12:23:23 <jo> PROPOSAL: The standard wil be called ODRL
12:23:35 <renato> +1
12:23:38 <smyles> +1
12:23:48 <Brian_Ulicny> Sorry.
12:23:49 <Brian_Ulicny> -1
12:24:03 <magyarblip> i really don't care
12:24:14 <magyarblip> i care that it exists
12:24:22 <simonstey> +0.5 (in absence of any other alternative)
12:25:20 <phila> q+ to ask about depth of TR's disapproval
12:25:37 <james> 0 - I prefer the term Permission as I think its more accurate and matches what exists in the model
12:25:43 <phila> q?
12:25:59 <phila> ack me
12:25:59 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about depth of TR's disapproval
12:26:00 <jo> ack p
12:26:35 <jo> phila: the aim of the process is to reach consensus (general agreement with no strong objections)
12:26:53 <jo> ... if anyone feels strongly then you can raise a formal objection
12:27:17 <smyles> q+
12:27:39 <jo> ... if that happens then chairs are asked to resolve then and if that doesn't happen then it gets escalated
12:27:53 <jo> q+
12:28:14 <jo> ack s
12:28:32 <jo> smyles: what is difficult abou thte proposal
12:29:06 <jo> ... what else might it be called, since it's hard to make a call otherwise
12:29:23 <jo> s/abou thte/about the
12:29:25 <phila> q- jo
12:29:28 <jo> jo: +1 to smyles
12:29:49 <magyarblip> +1
12:29:59 <jo> benws: action on those who are not happy to come up with alternatives
12:30:25 <benws> q?
12:30:33 <jo> ACTION: Ben to initiate a conversation on list to resolve what the alternative names might be
12:30:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-10 - Initiate a conversation on list to resolve what the alternative names might be [on Benedict Whittam Smith - due 2016-05-23].
12:32:02 <jo> topic: Use Cases
12:32:17 <jo> benws: how many ppl on this call have provided a use case?
12:32:23 <smyles> i have provided a use case
12:32:36 <phila> I have
12:33:15 <jo> q+ o note that use case editor not present?
12:33:25 <benws> q?
12:34:04 <jo> benws: those who have provided a use can, can you pls note if a change to ODRL is presupposed by your use case
12:34:50 <jo> smyles: think it is possible, but could do with clarification - can this be used for exceptional or supplemental licenses
12:35:08 <james> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases
12:35:16 <jo> ... perhaps the processing model should be clarified or expanded
12:35:31 <jo> benws: does your use case touvh template things
12:35:42 <jo> smyles: no, but perhaps I should add that
12:35:56 <jo> ... museum community would be keen
12:36:06 <jo> action: myles to add a template use case
12:36:07 <trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - Add a template use case [on Stuart Myles - due 2016-05-23].
12:36:52 <jo> phila: my use case is already covered I think - temporal aspect from date or between dates
12:37:08 <jo> renato: yes date constraints are covered
12:37:26 <magyarblip> q
12:37:40 <benws> q?
12:38:02 <jo> magyarblip: I have been torturing myself (a little bit) not so much that things are expressible, but that they are optimal
12:38:44 <jo> ... also too many options is a bad thing
12:38:57 <jo> benws: we may wish to provide guidance on this
12:39:40 <jo> ... are there some basic application patterns we want to recommend
12:39:51 <phila> q+
12:40:01 <smyles> q+
12:40:03 <phila> ack me
12:40:53 <jo> phila: is this a duplicate, but anyway, most data that is put on a portal has a cc license of some kind, they also want to represent what cc by means
12:41:18 <jo> ... can we associate a document in plain text with a machine readable decomposition of what is in it
12:42:50 <jo> renato: do you mean, you have an asset, there is a human readable license there is also a machine readable breakdown
12:43:08 <jo> ... so long as you can actually express the natural language in odrl ..
12:43:46 <jo> phila: in a machine readable way, say that the document is normative if there is a difference
12:44:11 <magyarblip> prov?
12:44:19 <benws> q?
12:44:25 <jo> benws: there could be a higher level ontological issue, ODRL's job is only to express the machine readable bit
12:44:56 <jo> renato: there is a W3C something which might solve the use cae
12:45:21 <jo> benws: please raise this as a use case
12:45:26 <jo> q+
12:45:47 <magyarblip> https://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/
12:46:03 <jo> s/W3C something/W3C media ontology/
12:46:16 <jo> benws: Open data people
12:46:23 <jo> phila: that's ODRS
12:47:44 <jo> smyles: I provided a use case, michael said to list requirement that come out of use case, do I have to list everything that I think is required, or the ones that are not covered by ODRL 2.1
12:48:44 <jo> phila: usually the case that a use case will throw up a list of atomic requirement most of which will be repeated across requirements
12:49:06 <jo> ... in the end the requirements end up being an atomic list
12:49:13 <benws> q?
12:49:22 <jo> benws: so the answer is an exhaustive list
12:49:24 <jo> q-
12:49:24 <phila> ack s
12:49:45 <jo> benws: more on use cases?
12:49:59 <jo> topic: AOB
12:50:12 <jo> benws: brian pls introduce yourself
12:51:20 <jo> brian: based in boston, have done OWL based policy reasoning about who can talk to whom across XMPP channels etc. just catching up on stuff and getting feet wet
12:51:41 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:51:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes.html phila
12:51:59 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:52:02 <jo> meeting closed
12:52:10 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:52:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes.html phila
12:52:18 <magyarblip> magyarblip has left #poe
12:52:33 <phila> present+ Brian_Ulicny
12:53:03 <phila> present+ magyarblip
12:53:11 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:53:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes.html phila