W3C

Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

23 May 2016

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Ivan, Renato, michaelS, victor, jo, Brian_Ulicny, Serena, benws2, smyles, sabrina
Regrets
Mo, Simon, caroline
Chair
Renato
Scribe
jo

Contents


<renato> Any volunteers to Scribe? Or we take the next on the list: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Scribes

<scribe> scribe: jo

Last meeting minutes

<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes

PROPOSAL: Approve minutes from 16 May

<phila> +1

<Serena> +1

<Brian_Ulicny> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve minutes from 16 May

RESOLUTION: Approved minutes from 16 May

Formal Semantics Note Editors

renato: simon, Sabrina, Victor have volunteered to be editors

Name of deliverables

renato: Carry over from last week, Action was on Ben

benws: I failed to make a proposal

renato: carry over to next week

use cases

michaels: Phila changes some things this morning

phila: I did two things, 1 add a use case from Euro Data Portal
... they have had to look through all licenses attached to data
... they have made a grid of what inter operates with what
... I made that into a requirement
... key thing is to be able to express "this interpretation is a view of person x" i.e. provenance is important
... not a legal claim
... I also made a trivial amenment to Stuart's use case

michaels: Stuart's use case - use case 07 has been added
... first item also appears in many others
... "supports ODRL 2.1"
... so we need to collect the current ODRL requirements

<michaelS> Requirements page https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements

michaels: should this be done in the ODRL community or here?

(silence)

<phila> ODR:L Reqs?

phila: I have found a page that has a call for requirements for a linked data profile
... a lot of material there
... however there is no existing document that collects all ODRL requirements

renato: there so is

<victor> https://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/2.0/WD-v2req-20050213.html

renato: after 1.1 we put together requirements based on feedback
... we used that as a baseline

phila: need something in a stable place ...
... the phil test is "can I read this and assess whether POE meets those requirements"

renato: this is not a normal working group
... yes, we start from the baseline of ODRL 2.1

<james> Apologies for joining late!

renato: meets community requirements
... not sure whether going through the requirements for 2.0 2.1 gets us anywhere
... better to move on to new stuff
... don't think that everything that is supported is in the requirements

phila: it's the delta we need to identify

renato: it's a given that 2.1 requirements are supported
... michael and ben, we havea collection of use cases on the Web site and we need to end up with a note
... are you happy with the way it's going, what input do you need

benws: need more use cases and I need to add some. Likely to be iterative in that some will suggest others.
... after that I can feed back to group what the delta is

<renato> https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/

renato: looking at what others in W3C have done
... is this something that we want to copy?

phila: doubt we need to produce one that long

<renato> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-ucr/

phila: don't expect there to be 50 use cases, but the structure is very good, in-document hyperlinks are auto generated
... so less work than you might think

benws: we have discussed having a primer "how ODRL can solve your rights management issues"
... can the use case morph into a primer?

renato: current ODRL has "Scenarios" to help the reader understand what problem is being solved

<michaelS> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open

michaels: I looked at open actions page and there are some use case actions in there
... people whould close actions if they have done it

phila: I m leaving my actions open as I am still talking

ACTION-7?

<trackbot> ACTION-7 -- Benedict Whittam Smith to Provide use cases on financial data -- due 2016-04-18 -- OPEN

<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/7

jo: if you think you have done your action, mark it as pending review
... then on the next call it can get closed during the next call

<phila> Use Case

ACTION-4?

<trackbot> ACTION-4 -- Phil Archer to Write use case from VRE project about time limited restrictions and metadata -- due 2016-04-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/4

phil: I have completed action-4

<benws2> +1

<phila> close action-4

<trackbot> Closed action-4.

renato: any other use cases you want to discuss on this call

benws: want to understand the point victor made about adding additional information

victor: I was requested to provide additional info, but need more info from editors as to how to do this

michaels: I have raised some thing responding to victor

renato: victor can you get back to michaels

victor: yes I did

michaels: then I asked more questions

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about numbering

phila: trivially, we are putting numbers on the use cases, which is nice, but they get transferred across to documents which turns out weird and confusing
... let's use the not numbering
... or we could refer by name

jo: surely better not to number things since it makes it more difficult to change order (i.e. name them)

renato: give every use case a short name
... two three words at most

<michaelS> Supports short names

<victor> +1

<benws2> +1

PROPOSAL: we use short names to refer to use cases on both wiki and in the document

<phila> +1

<renato> +

<james> +1

<ivan> 0

<smyles> +1

<sabrina> +1

<michaelS> +1

<Brian_Ulicny> +1

<renato> +1

RESOLUTION: we use short names to refer to use cases on both wiki and in the document

renato: back to use case analysis
... anything more from the editors or anyone else

michaels: may deadline is "in doubt"

renato: june?

michaels: more realistic

<phila> W3C isn't going to worry about one month delay at this stage. Later stages, yes, but not yet.

PROPOSAL: New deliverable date for use cases is end June

<Serena> +1

<james> +1

<phila> +1

<benws2> +1

<michaelS> +1

<Brian_Ulicny> +1

<ivan> +1

<renato> +1

<sabrina> +1

<smyles> +1

RESOLUTION: New deliverable date for use cases is end June

phila: if we are able to publish use cases end june, then so much the better
... if we can add the first drafts of the other docs
... then we have baseline and delta
... same day publication of all three docs

<benws2> +1

renato: agree
... we will publish all three end of June, give the community some idea of where we are heading

phila: end of June is latest it can be done as summer hols kick in

renato: any moratoria or something?

phila: no

michaels: then we need a cut off date for use cases
... we wanted them in April. Some are still missing, so we need them early June otherwise they won't be included

renato: agree

phila: actually we can't publish exactly the last week in June, but we would in 1st week of July

<phila> +1 to Michael's deadline suggestion

renato: so back to michael's point, deadline for submission of use cases is June 6

benws: can't guarantee that any use case that comes in after then will make the first draft document

renato: any more on use cases?

open actions

renato: we already looked at them

any other business

renato: tpac is coming, if you can come please update your status
... a "fun week" worth coming!

<phila> TPAC

phila: also if you can't go please also fill in your info
... to help with logistics

<Brian_Ulicny> -1

<smyles> -1

<michaelS> +1

<sabrina> +1

STRAW POLL: who can come next week?

<phila> -1

<james> 0

-1

<Serena> +1

<renato> +1

<michaelS> +1

<sabrina> +1

<smyles> -1

phila: gingoistic comment of some kind

renato: next week's call will go ahead

[meeting closed]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Approve minutes from 16 May
  2. Approved minutes from 16 May
  3. we use short names to refer to use cases on both wiki and in the document
  4. New deliverable date for use cases is end June
[End of minutes]