12:07:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:07:37 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/20-poe-irc
12:07:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:07:39 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:07:41 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
12:07:41 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:07:42 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:07:42 <trackbot> Date: 20 June 2016
12:07:54 <ivan> scribenick: Brian_Ulicny
12:07:55 <ivan> Chair: Ben
12:08:23 <simonstey> present+
12:08:29 <ivan> Present+
12:08:38 <michaelS> present+
12:08:42 <Brian_Ulicny> present+
12:08:43 <renato> Present+
12:08:45 <benws2> present+
12:08:49 <sabrina> present+
12:09:00 <renato> regrets: phil, stuart
12:09:47 <ivan> Topic: spec name proposal
12:09:58 <Brian_Ulicny> resolution carried to accept last meeting's minutes
12:10:15 <james> present+
12:10:15 <ivan> Topic: Use case update
12:10:40 <Brian_Ulicny> how to better extract requirements from use cases?
12:10:58 <benws2> q?
12:11:12 <michaelS> - ReqEd should try to create a correct requirement - ReqEds should communicate with the UC contributors about missing clarity - the ReqEds may/should have a role in editing the final Primer/UC document
12:12:54 <ivan> Present+ James
12:13:07 <ivan> Present+
12:14:08 <renato> [I have lost webex conneciton...trying to reconnect...]
12:14:20 <Brian_Ulicny> i am connected but the summary is in irc
12:14:29 <Brian_Ulicny> we just went over those three points
12:15:32 <Brian_Ulicny> everyone agree?
12:15:40 <benws2> +1
12:15:40 <Brian_Ulicny> +1
12:15:53 <ivan> +1
12:16:03 <sabrina> +1
12:16:21 <James> +1
12:16:23 <simonstey> +q
12:16:34 <ivan> ack simonstey
12:16:38 <CarolineB> CarolineB has joined #poe
12:16:49 <simonstey> yeah
12:16:57 <ivan> present+ CarolineB
12:17:56 <Brian_Ulicny> remark on primer statement: what we want is a link from accepted requirement to those parts of the specification in order to show that they were met
12:18:25 <Brian_Ulicny> the primer should link to the requirements in the specification.
12:18:27 <ivan> s/remark/simonstey: remark/
12:19:13 <Brian_Ulicny> benws2: there will be a voting line noted in all requirements
12:19:48 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: in reqs doc, there are reqs that have triggered discussion, pros, cons.  How to indicate agreement/disagreement
12:20:11 <michaelS> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements
12:20:22 <Brian_Ulicny> another w3c working group notes status of agreement/disagreement, we are borrowing their idea
12:20:27 <ivan> s/simon: /michaelS: /
12:20:41 <Brian_Ulicny> we propose to add status value
12:20:50 <Brian_Ulicny> vote
12:21:15 <Brian_Ulicny> 1 of 4 outlined values: starting point, under consideration, approved or rejected.
12:21:43 <Brian_Ulicny> if approved, link to requirements
12:22:12 <Brian_Ulicny> should be a sequence of voting
12:22:34 <Brian_Ulicny> if you want to indicate that requirements need further clarification, vote 0
12:22:46 <Brian_Ulicny> this will enable us to make decisions
12:22:57 <Brian_Ulicny> then we can raise as issue at conference call
12:23:36 <Brian_Ulicny>  got it.
12:24:08 <Brian_Ulicny> "harder to solve issues should be discussed"
12:25:02 <Brian_Ulicny> benws2: "if a requirement is getting a lot of approval/rejection, then we can bring it to call and discuss it"
12:25:31 <Brian_Ulicny> bensw2: "reqs with a lot of clarification, can also be brought to call"
12:26:15 <Brian_Ulicny> bensw2: "allows working over 7 days, not just the 1 hour"
12:26:18 <benws2> q?
12:26:23 <simonstey> +q
12:26:37 <ivan> ack simonstey
12:26:57 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "we need an official vote on this"
12:27:10 <renato> [i'm back...calling in via skype!]
12:27:39 <Brian_Ulicny> bensw2: "we are not changing the formal process, just adding a workflow"
12:28:39 <simonstey> fine with me
12:28:52 <Brian_Ulicny> +1
12:28:54 <ivan> +1
12:28:55 <michaelS> +1
12:28:56 <benws2> +1
12:28:59 <sabrina> +1
12:28:59 <CarolineB> +1
12:29:00 <simonstey> +1
12:29:02 <victor> fine with me
12:29:29 <James> +1
12:29:39 <Brian_Ulicny> benws2: "we can already identify the most contententious issues"
12:29:57 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "there are 4 reqs that have triggered discussion"
12:30:03 <Brian_Ulicny> "let's jointly look at them"
12:30:10 <Brian_Ulicny> "ok?"
12:30:23 <Brian_Ulicny> "1.3.11"
12:30:41 <renato> 1.4.1.1
12:30:45 <ivan> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Define_how_constraints_on_a_party_can_be_expressed
12:31:49 <renato> q
12:31:51 <renato> q+
12:32:27 <Brian_Ulicny> renato: "who does the constraint apply to?"
12:32:45 <simonstey> +q
12:33:10 <Brian_Ulicny> renato: "the ability to apply constraints to an ind on the basis of group membership is very common"
12:34:14 <Brian_Ulicny> "is it really a req to include parties?"
12:34:22 <simonstey> permissions/prohib/duties already link to parties
12:35:02 <Brian_Ulicny> renato: "there is no use case describing the req"
12:35:21 <Brian_Ulicny> "access control is out of scope for us"
12:35:33 <Brian_Ulicny> "we need a much clearer reason for this req"
12:35:45 <Brian_Ulicny> "what are we trying to solve? Is it in scope?"
12:36:07 <benws2> q+
12:36:53 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "it is possible to group individuals via Role property in ODRL"
12:36:54 <renato> q-
12:37:35 <Brian_Ulicny> "in order to say that _admins_ have a certain permission, you would use the role _admin_"
12:37:42 <Brian_Ulicny> "in current ODRL"
12:38:19 <Brian_Ulicny> victor: "you can give permission based on a property of an agent, simple as that"
12:38:38 <Brian_Ulicny> benws2: "couldn't that property define a group?"
12:38:45 <simonstey> +q
12:39:00 <Brian_Ulicny> victor: " if it is a numeric property, then it will be hard to define a group?"
12:39:20 <Brian_Ulicny> "permissions for those whose age is over 18"
12:39:22 <benws2> q+
12:39:42 <michaelS> q+
12:40:09 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "fine with contraints like that.  issue is that we shouldn't allow defining the same thing in 20 diff ways"
12:40:49 <renato> q+
12:41:00 <Brian_Ulicny> "huge mess is if we define same thing in multiple ways.  Let's find one approach"
12:41:41 <Brian_Ulicny> benws2: "telemetry on f1 car: real time vs later"
12:41:51 <Brian_Ulicny> "permissions different"
12:42:09 <Brian_Ulicny> victor: "target and agent should be handled the same"
12:42:10 <benws2> q?
12:42:18 <simonstey> q- simonstey
12:42:48 <renato> q- benws
12:43:06 <Brian_Ulicny> michaels: "contraint includes an action and parties, not clear to which it applies"
12:43:29 <Brian_Ulicny> "this is not reflected in current definition"
12:43:47 <benws2> q?
12:43:48 <Brian_Ulicny> "some say this is a contraint applyting to asset, some say to use"
12:44:07 <Brian_Ulicny> "first: not easy to indicate the nature of a party"
12:44:25 <simonstey> +q
12:45:01 <Brian_Ulicny> "ODRL provides no clear guideline on how to apply constraints to parties.  But this is required"
12:45:03 <victor> I like Michael's analysis, and I believe it is a good opportunity to do things more clear
12:46:11 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "if a constraint is not fulfilled then it is not active'
12:48:17 <simonstey> [ a foaf:Person; .. ]
12:48:22 <Brian_Ulicny> michaelS: "in semantic web, we would define in terms of a blank node, foaf person, restriction on age"
12:48:42 <Brian_Ulicny> "issue here, is this doesn't work well in other formats...beyond RDF"
12:49:02 <Brian_Ulicny> "maybe not every assignee has an age"
12:49:16 <benws2> q?
12:49:17 <Brian_Ulicny> "not sure how we are going to approach this"
12:49:45 <sabrina> q+
12:49:51 <Brian_Ulicny> victor: "but paradigm property is defined"
12:50:10 <Brian_Ulicny> victor: "this is not logically complex.  Would add power to spec"
12:50:53 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "can add power ... would add complexity.  Discussed in transition from 1.0 to 2.0"
12:51:40 <Brian_Ulicny> "if we were to add constraint to both party and asset and took away req to have a UID but allowed defining asset or party through constraint..."
12:51:50 <Brian_Ulicny> "then we could do that"
12:52:06 <Brian_Ulicny> benws2: "point is to get really clear use case"
12:52:17 <Brian_Ulicny> "victor, please add to use case"
12:52:18 <sabrina> q-
12:52:27 <Brian_Ulicny> how do I add an action?
12:52:28 <renato> q- renato
12:52:38 <simonstey> -q
12:52:47 <Brian_Ulicny> action+ victor to add to requirement
12:52:48 <sabrina> II also support the association of constraints with parties and assets -
12:52:54 <ivan> ack michaelS
12:53:01 <ivan> ACTION victor to add requirement
12:53:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Add requirement [on Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel - due 2016-06-27].
12:53:23 <Brian_Ulicny> tx ivan
12:54:14 <benws2> q?
12:54:26 <Brian_Ulicny> benws2: "moving to next item: pending actions"
12:54:31 <Brian_Ulicny> "none"
12:54:43 <Brian_Ulicny> "open actions? ben's and phil's"
12:54:47 <Brian_Ulicny> "new name"
12:55:42 <Brian_Ulicny> victor: "want to do analysis of existing constraints via mailing list"
12:55:57 <michaelS> q+
12:56:07 <Brian_Ulicny> benws2: "any other biz?"
12:56:47 <Brian_Ulicny> michaelS: "req eds: final version of reqs was due by next call.  I feel not possible."
12:57:16 <Brian_Ulicny> benws2: "that does sound unlikely"
12:57:20 <simonstey> +q
12:58:29 <ivan> ack michaelS
12:58:30 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "let's not rush this. we haven't even managed to discuss al the use cases.  This is a long process."
12:58:31 <ivan> ack simonstey
12:58:43 <renato> q+
12:59:30 <ivan> q+
12:59:58 <Brian_Ulicny> victor: "collection of reqs vs implementation"
13:00:15 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "we need to decide to agree to reqs"
13:00:38 <victor> what about making a specific/extra call not on Monday?
13:00:46 <Brian_Ulicny> renato: "we need to allocate more time to phone calls"
13:00:53 <Brian_Ulicny> "maybe 2 next week"
13:00:57 <Brian_Ulicny> "more calls"
13:01:31 <Brian_Ulicny> ivan: "we are working with 2 kinds of docs: republishing ODRL (mature) is important."
13:01:44 <Brian_Ulicny> "use case doc evolving quite a bit"
13:02:08 <Brian_Ulicny> "first document is first draft -- no one claims is finished.  stake in ground with ODRL"
13:02:46 <Brian_Ulicny> "point is that having first draft and having stakeholders is perfectly fine"
13:02:57 <Brian_Ulicny> "should not ask too much"
13:03:28 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "that sounds reasonable.  let's go with first collection of use cases.  Just publish for now."
13:03:52 <Brian_Ulicny> ivan: "will still require a lot of time to transfer from wiki, etc.  Vote etc"
13:04:19 <Brian_Ulicny> benws2: "over time. Let's pursue in next call, possibly increase number of calls."
13:04:22 <victor> +1
13:04:36 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:04:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/20-poe-minutes.html ivan
13:04:42 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
13:04:42 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
13:04:42 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been simonstey, ivan, michaelS, Brian_Ulicny, renato, benws, sabrina, james, CarolineB
13:04:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
13:04:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/20-poe-minutes.html trackbot
13:04:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
13:04:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items