11:59:28 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
11:59:28 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/06-poe-irc
11:59:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
11:59:30 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
11:59:32 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
11:59:32 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
11:59:33 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
11:59:33 <trackbot> Date: 06 June 2016
11:59:40 <phila_> present+ michaelS, phila
11:59:56 <renato> present+ renato
11:59:56 <jo> jo has joined #poe
12:00:19 <magyarblip> magyarblip has joined #poe
12:01:15 <smyles> smyles has joined #poe
12:02:40 <Sabrina> Sabrina has joined #poe
12:03:12 <smyles> present+ smyles
12:03:19 <phila> RRSAgent: present+ jo, Patrick, Sabrina, Ben
12:03:19 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'present+ jo, Patrick, Sabrina, Ben', phila.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
12:03:27 <phila> present+ jo, Patrick, Sabrina, Ben
12:03:37 <victor> victor has joined #poe
12:04:00 <phila> phila has changed the topic to: Agenda for 2016-05-30: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160606
12:04:05 <ivan> Present+ Ivan
12:04:16 <renato> regrets: serena, caroline
12:04:17 <Sabrina> present+ Sabrina
12:04:31 <victor> present +victor
12:04:51 <simonstey> present+
12:05:12 <James> present+
12:05:30 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Scribes
12:06:03 <phila> scribe: phila
12:06:08 <phila> scribeNick: phila
12:06:19 <phila> Topic: Approve last week's minutes
12:06:25 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/05/30-poe-minutes
12:06:36 <phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/05/30-poe-minutes
12:06:43 <victor> my tiny comment to last minutes' is that I regretted my absence in advance
12:06:48 <phila> renato: Speak now if you have any objections to those minutes
12:07:04 <phila> RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/05/30-poe-minutes
12:07:46 <phila> renato: Take naming issue to next week
12:08:00 <phila> ben: I still need to come up with some ideas
12:08:00 <James> I added a use case last night
12:08:13 <phila> victor: Is it between ODRL and POE?
12:08:21 <phila> Ben: I#ve been asked to make a proposal
12:08:29 <phila> Topic: Use Cases
12:08:51 <phila> renato: I'll hand over to the co-editors: Simon Ben and Michael
12:08:58 <phila> ... Any discussion we need to have on this call?
12:09:16 <phila> michaelS: Compared with last week's, we only have 1 additional UC, no. 17
12:09:32 <phila> ... In the meantime, the three editors have discussed how to work on the UCs
12:09:54 <phila> ... Proposal is to split the UCs between the three of us
12:10:08 <phila> ben: Yes, agree with that, and good that we're not looking at our own use cases.
12:10:43 <phila> michaelS: In the meantie, Simon confirmed that he would take the final step of moving the content from the wiki to GitHib, transforming them along the way.
12:11:09 <phila> ... I have retrived thge requirements from 'my' use cases - and this is what you find in the requirements page
12:11:13 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements
12:11:16 <phila> ... I will be away next week
12:11:53 <phila> michaelS: One deatil - while working on the reqs, I made two proposals to extend the categories by adding 'processing rules' - we haven't had much about that in ODRL
12:12:04 <phila> ... How to process a policy properly and let policies interact with each other
12:12:08 <phila> ... So that makes sense to me
12:12:26 <phila> ... And then we also had 'implementation guidelines' - how we shoud encourage people
12:12:43 <renato> q+
12:12:44 <phila> renato: Any comments so far?
12:12:53 <ivan> q+ on purely editorial
12:13:26 <phila> renato: On that list of reqs, we probably need to annotate... we need to discuss those reqs before they move to GH and become part of the Note
12:13:31 <phila> ... is that the plan?
12:13:37 <benws> benws has joined #poe
12:13:44 <phila> michaelS: The last discussion should be on 27 June but any earlier is welcome of course.
12:13:56 <phila> ... I circulated a note on what I've done so far
12:13:59 <victor> I raise my hand. I also have some questions
12:14:17 <benws> present+ benws
12:14:18 <phila> victor: I have a question regarding the vocabularies.
12:14:54 <phila> ... In previous versions of ODRL we have a voc adequate for multimedia content... we have actions like display, distribute, but this is a possible application domain?
12:15:15 <benws> q?
12:15:24 <phila> ... Will it be media centric again? For e.g. we could derive some terms from the language terms from UC 1
12:15:41 <phila> ... and from UC 2 we could have some related to data domain - create, update, merge etc.
12:15:52 <phila> q+ to talk about domains
12:16:29 <benws> q+
12:16:40 <phila> renato: Let me try and answer that question, Victor. I don't think wewant to be domain specific. We shouldn't have a a complete set of terms per domain
12:16:52 <phila> ... It was about what were common terms from common assets
12:17:16 <phila> ... I think we even had translate at one time but we took it out because no one was using it
12:17:23 <phila> ack re
12:17:42 <phila> renato: Translate happens in multiple domains so we could add that back in.
12:17:50 <phila> ... we don't need to cluster things into domains
12:17:57 <phila> ... we can have the terms any way we like
12:18:09 <michaelS> q+
12:18:19 <phila> ... a group could create a Note of new terms. The core specs should be agnostic I'd say.
12:18:40 <phila> victor: The actions from UC 2 are very generic and there aren't many of them.
12:19:00 <phila> renato: UC2 is the Linked Data one. That's not in the requirements set yet.
12:19:10 <phila> ... In the e-mail from michaelS that wasn't reflected yet.
12:19:17 <phila> michaelS: That's Simon's use case
12:19:42 <phila> simonstey: I haven't done a lot yet but I was part of the LD Profile work. We came up with those requirements.
12:19:49 <phila> renato: So it's a timing issue. OK.
12:20:03 <ivan> q?
12:20:55 <phila> ivan: A completely editorial thing. It so hapopens that another group is working on a UCR doc so I played with a script that can be used with ReSpec that makes it easy to have references to link between use cases and reqs
12:21:26 <phila> ... What usually happens is that one UC generates 2 or 3 differnet Reqs that may be shared by several UCs so one decent way of doing it is that each UC has a list of Reqs
12:21:46 <phila> ... And then a separate section gives details of the reqs
12:22:08 <phila> ... So I came up with some JS that can handle that. It's a bit shaky but it's getting there.
12:22:14 <phila> renato: Please send it to the editors
12:22:23 <phila> ivan: I'll send a copy of the mail I sent to the other WG's editors.
12:22:49 <phila> ack me
12:22:49 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about domains
12:24:07 <phila> phila: If we list actions, we must define an extension mechanism for adding more
12:24:18 <phila> chair: Ben, Renato
12:24:41 <phila> benws: A concept like real time data - is that domain specific? Does it exist in its own?
12:25:04 <phila> benws: My way around it was to see whether I could think of 3 domains where a term could be used.
12:25:24 <phila> benws: I don't think ODRL is domain-specific. Additional profiles can be added
12:25:29 <phila> ... That was my feeling anyway
12:25:38 <phila> ... And on the issue of profiles
12:26:03 <phila> ... I'm looking at creating a profile for stock exchanges which have a very specific language
12:27:00 <jo> q+
12:27:25 <renato> q+
12:27:38 <benws> q?
12:27:43 <phila> phila: Talked about a likely workshop on the topic of vocab management and profiles
12:28:17 <jo> q-
12:28:18 <phila> benws: Are profiles sufficient for an extension mechanism
12:28:23 <phila> phila: I believe so, yes
12:28:26 <benws> q?
12:28:35 <benws> q- b
12:28:51 <phila> michaelS: From my activity area of action vocab in ODRL, I was aware that it has to have a shared view of what an asset it
12:28:53 <jo> ack m
12:28:57 <phila> ... Which we don't actually define
12:29:00 <jo> ack i
12:29:00 <Zakim> ivan, you wanted to comment on purely editorial
12:29:14 <phila> ... If people feel that their domain is not covered, then we need to know.
12:29:30 <phila> michaelS: We can only discuss things when we have an issue
12:29:58 <phila> victor: Regarding hte implementation of software based on ODRL, there should be levels of compliance. Which profiles am I complyign with
12:30:04 <phila> q+ to talk about profile compliance
12:30:23 <phila> victor: So we can check that the syntax is right, but with additional validation
12:30:40 <phila> victor: Will a profile only define new terms, or can it also define structural extensions
12:32:33 <michaelS> q+
12:33:10 <phila> victor: In the current ODRL, there is a non-normative anne that defines how to use Boolean operators but it's not official
12:33:26 <phila> ... So I wonder whetehr a profile can define these structural ideas
12:33:44 <phila> ... I support using SHACL for validation, but it doesn't extend to XML
12:33:53 <phila> phila: (For XML you'd use XSD)
12:34:08 <phila> renato: Two quick ones. For profiles, we need to more work on how we handle profiles
12:34:22 <phila> ... In ODRL alll the onus is on the external community.
12:34:38 <phila> ... On conformance, we need to discuss that more. ODRL is only an expression language
12:34:39 <michaelS> The current ODRL Profile specs https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/#section-212
12:34:45 <phila> renato: What I wanted to get back to is the requirements.
12:34:55 <michaelS> q-
12:35:24 <phila> renato: Some the requirements are a bit ambiguous.
12:35:52 <phila> ... For example, under model, usage facet of an action. Distinguishing between academic, commercail, etc. I'm not sure what that means so I don't know what to do with the requirement.
12:36:20 <michaelS> q+
12:36:26 <phila> renato: I'll go through the requirements but they need to be as unambiguous as possible.
12:36:50 <phila> benws: I take your point. My answer is that when all threee editors have gone over the doc, hopefully the clarity will be a lot better.
12:37:04 <phila> ... I don't understand all the reqs. We can iterate until we all understand the reqs.
12:37:14 <phila> q-
12:37:16 <phila> q- renato
12:37:25 <phila> q?
12:37:31 <phila> ack mi
12:37:50 <phila> michaelS: This is a good example where I came to the conclusion that I can feel I undersdtand it, but I can't alweays prove that I understanbd
12:38:08 <phila> ... My decision is whether to include it as it is, or add in some assumptions that might change the req
12:38:28 <phila> ... I think it sould be good to have a face to face to Skype call to understand.
12:38:34 <phila> benws: E-mail not good enough?
12:38:37 <phila> michaelS: Not really
12:38:45 <benws> q?
12:38:49 <phila> ... It's a case of terminology too. What is a condition?
12:38:58 <phila> ... It's not a term we've used in ODRL, for example
12:39:04 <simonstey> +q
12:39:14 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:39:21 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:39:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/06-poe-minutes.html phila
12:39:34 <simonstey> -q
12:39:37 <phila> benws: If Simon and I get involved then hopefully these things will become clearer
12:39:41 <phila> q=
12:39:44 <phila> q+
12:39:58 <phila> q-
12:40:37 <phila> phila: It's normal for editors to need to get together
12:40:48 <phila> victor: I'm available for extrea Skype calls if needs be
12:40:59 <benws> Q?
12:41:13 <phila> Topic: Actions
12:41:28 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open
12:41:31 <phila> action-7?
12:41:31 <trackbot> action-7 -- Benedict Whittam Smith to Provide use cases on financial data -- due 2016-04-18 -- OPEN
12:41:31 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/7
12:41:42 <phila> benws: I provided 8 use cases for this
12:41:48 <phila> close action-7
12:41:48 <trackbot> Closed action-7.
12:41:59 <simonstey> action-5
12:41:59 <phila> victor: I'd like to be release from actrions 5 and 8
12:41:59 <trackbot> action-5 -- Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel to Provide 2 use cases from upm -- due 2016-04-18 -- OPEN
12:41:59 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/5
12:42:01 <simonstey> action-8
12:42:01 <trackbot> action-8 -- Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel to Add more example use cases for poe.uc.01 -- due 2016-04-25 -- OPEN
12:42:01 <phila> action-5?
12:42:01 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/8
12:42:02 <trackbot> action-5 -- Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel to Provide 2 use cases from upm -- due 2016-04-18 -- OPEN
12:42:02 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/5
12:42:08 <phila> action-7?
12:42:08 <trackbot> action-7 -- Benedict Whittam Smith to Provide use cases on financial data -- due 2016-04-18 -- CLOSED
12:42:08 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/7
12:42:14 <phila> action-8?
12:42:14 <trackbot> action-8 -- Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel to Add more example use cases for poe.uc.01 -- due 2016-04-25 -- OPEN
12:42:14 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/8
12:42:18 <phila> close action-5
12:42:18 <trackbot> Closed action-5.
12:42:22 <phila> close action-8
12:42:22 <trackbot> Closed action-8.
12:43:07 <phila> regrets+ Mo
12:44:07 <phila> phila: My problem is the deadline
12:44:12 <phila> benws: I'm expecting to iterate
12:44:44 <phila> phila: Would like to leave them open but I have not been ignoring them
12:44:45 <benws> q?
12:45:00 <phila> benws: Any other issues
12:45:06 <phila> Topic: Instant Licence Mapping
12:45:19 <phila> renato: last month I posted a link to the Licence Picker from the ODI
12:45:29 <phila> ... And Serena posted a similar tool from INRIA
12:45:52 <phila> ... What's common across both is that they have mapped the common licences and mapped them to ODRL terms and others
12:46:04 <phila> ... That seems a useful service that the community might want to use
12:46:14 <James> q+
12:46:22 <phila> ... I want a licence that does XYZ and see what it looks like in machine terms
12:46:31 <phila> benws: Would that be a W3C service?
12:46:43 <phila> renato: I see it as a Note, on how we've mapped terms
12:47:03 <phila> ... If we brought them together that might be useful to the open data world
12:47:15 <phila> phila: Woiuld like that very much, yes, and could work on it.
12:47:21 <phila> q+
12:47:33 <phila> benws: So you could say, this is what a CC-By looks like
12:47:55 <phila> benws: What would scare me is the potential number of such licences. 30? 40?
12:48:03 <phila> renato: I think there are 2030 at the moment
12:48:08 <phila> q?
12:48:32 <phila> James: On our platform, which uses ODRL, we're doing some work on creating offers
12:48:59 <phila> ... we'd like to make those intelligible. We'd like to use the relevant elements of ODRL and use icons along the way.
12:49:15 <phila> ack j
12:49:35 <phila> benws: Do you allow people to apply CC licences or is it all about specific offers?
12:49:41 <renato> License Picker licenses: http://data.open.ac.uk/licence-picker/?controller=picker&action=index
12:49:50 <phila> James: We have a simple model. We've slightly extended ODRL 2.1
12:50:00 <phila> ... WE do have CC modelled within that.
12:50:00 <renato> ... and ontology: http://data.open.ac.uk/licence-picker/?controller=ontology&action=index
12:50:09 <phila> ... We want to experiment with differnet software licences
12:50:26 <benws> q?
12:50:44 <phila> benws: Do you think it would be useful to provide a Note of how to describe ODRL versions of common licences.
12:50:45 <phila> James: The issue is where would the vocab come from?
12:51:12 <phila> benws: I think we could use ccREL but you had to extend it?
12:51:32 <phila> James: Yes. Common licences so far have things like 'commercial' but that means different things to different people
12:51:36 <victor> Just as a reminder, since 2014 we maintain a set of nearly 200 licenses at http://rdflicense.appspot.com/
12:51:41 <phila> s/WE/We/
12:51:57 <jo> my regrets, I have to drop off the call
12:52:20 <phila> victor: Our list implements ODRL, conng, for software etc. I worked with Serena on that
12:52:20 <phila> q?
12:52:27 <smyles> q+
12:52:31 <jo> jo has left #poe
12:52:33 <phila> victor: I never looked for the sanction of W3C as mappings are arguable
12:52:41 <phila> ... But I actively maintain that dataset
12:53:23 <phila> James: An authoritative list would be useful.
12:53:51 <phila> benws: It is always *our* interpretation
12:53:51 <phila> ... It's who gives the authority of the interpretation
12:54:02 <phila> q?
12:54:20 <phila> renato: So it may not be useful
12:54:27 <phila> benws: It would be very useful!
12:54:41 <phila> victor: We include who provides the mapping
12:54:48 <phila> ... It's very useful and practical but has no legel value
12:54:53 <phila> s/legel/legal/
12:55:04 <phila> victor: I like it because it has multilingual support
12:55:07 <phila> q/
12:55:12 <James> https://tldrlegal.com
12:55:23 <phila> James: As a demo of the issues...
12:55:49 <phila> ... These are crowdsourced definitions of what the constraints are on GPL3 for exammple
12:55:59 <benws> q?
12:56:01 <phila> ... People may miss bits that i think are important
12:58:46 <phila> phila: Rambles about what otehrs have said and, unusually, offers to help (under BDE)
12:58:51 <phila> ack me
12:59:05 <phila> ack sm
12:59:17 <phila> smyles: I was going to express enthusiasm for this idea.
12:59:21 <phila> TOPIC: TPAC
12:59:31 <phila> renato: if you are planning to come, or not, please let us know
12:59:44 <phila> renato: If you're still trying to come, please let us all know.
12:59:53 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:59:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/06-poe-minutes.html phila
15:00:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe