Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

resolution carried to accept last meeting's minutes

Use case update

how to better extract requirements from use cases?

<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

everyone agree?

<benws2> +1

+1

<ivan> +1

<sabrina> +1

<James> +1

<simonstey> +q

<simonstey> yeah

simonstey: 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
... the primer should link to the requirements in the specification.

benws2: there will be a voting line noted in all requirements

michaelS: in reqs doc, there are reqs that have triggered discussion, pros, cons. How to indicate agreement/disagreement

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

michaelS: another w3c working group notes status of agreement/disagreement, we are borrowing their idea
... we propose to add status value
... vote
... 1 of 4 outlined values: starting point, under consideration, approved or rejected.
... if approved, link to requirements
... should be a sequence of voting
... if you want to indicate that requirements need further clarification, vote 0
... this will enable us to make decisions
... then we can raise as issue at conference call, harder to solve issues should be discussed

benws2: "if a requirement is getting a lot of approval/rejection, then we can bring it to call and discuss it"

bensw2: "reqs with a lot of clarification, can also be brought to call"
... "allows working over 7 days, not just the 1 hour"

<simonstey> +q

simon: "we need an official vote on this"

bensw2: "we are not changing the formal process, just adding a workflow"

<simonstey> fine with me

+1

<ivan> +1

<michaelS> +1

<benws2> +1

<sabrina> +1

<CarolineB> +1

<simonstey> +1

<victor> fine with me

<James> +1

benws2: "we can already identify the most contentious issues"

simon: "there are 4 reqs that have triggered discussion"
... "let's jointly look at them"
... "ok?"

<renato> 1.4.1.1

<ivan> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#Define_how_constraints_on_a_party_can_be_expressed

<renato> q

renato: "who does the constraint apply to?"

<simonstey> +q

renato: "the ability to apply constraints to an ind on the basis of group membership is very common"
... "is it really a req to include parties?"

<simonstey> permissions/prohib/duties already link to parties

renato: "there is no use case describing the req"
... "access control is out of scope for us"
... "we need a much clearer reason for this req"
... "what are we trying to solve? Is it in scope?"

simon: "it is possible to group individuals via Role property in ODRL"
... "in order to say that _admins_ have a certain permission, you would use the role _admin_"
... "in current ODRL"

victor: "you can give permission based on a property of an agent, simple as that"

benws2: "couldn't that property define a group?"

<simonstey> +q

victor: " if it is a numeric property, then it will be hard to define a group?"
... "permissions for those whose age is over 18"

simon: "fine with constraints like that. issue is that we shouldn't allow defining the same thing in 20 diff ways"
... "huge mess is if we define same thing in multiple ways. Let's find one approach"

benws2: "telemetry on f1 car: real time vs later"
... "permissions different"

victor: "target and agent should be handled the same"

michaels: "constraint includes an action and parties, not clear to which it applies"
... "this is not reflected in current definition"
... "some say this is a constraint applying to asset, some say to use"
... "first: not easy to indicate the nature of a party"

<simonstey> +q

michaels: "ODRL provides no clear guideline on how to apply constraints to parties. But this is required"

<victor> I like Michael's analysis, and I believe it is a good opportunity to do things more clear

simon: "if a constraint is not fulfilled then it is not active'

<simonstey> [ a foaf:Person; .. ]

michaelS: "in semantic web, we would define in terms of a blank node, foaf person, restriction on age"
... "issue here, is this doesn't work well in other formats...beyond RDF"
... "maybe not every assignee has an age"
... "not sure how we are going to approach this"

victor: "but paradigm property is defined"
... "this is not logically complex. Would add power to spec"

simon: "can add power ... would add complexity. Discussed in transition from 1.0 to 2.0"
... "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..."
... "then we could do that"

benws2: "point is to get really clear use case"

"victor, please add to use case"

<simonstey> -q

<sabrina> II also support the association of constraints with parties and assets -

<ivan> ACTION victor to add requirement

<trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Add requirement [on Victor Rodriguez-Doncel - due 2016-06-27].

benws2: "moving to next item: pending actions"
... "none"

pending actions

benws2: "open actions? ben's and phil's"

<scribe> ... "new name"

victor: "want to do analysis of existing constraints via mailing list"

benws2: "any other biz?"

michaelS: "req eds: final version of reqs was due by next call. I feel not possible."

benws2: "that does sound unlikely"

<simonstey> +q

simon: "let's not rush this. we haven't even managed to discuss al the use cases. This is a long process."

victor: "collection of reqs vs implementation"

simon: "we need to decide to agree to reqs"

<victor> what about making a specific/extra call not on Monday?

renato: "we need to allocate more time to phone calls"
... "maybe 2 next week"
... "more calls"

ivan: "we are working with 2 kinds of docs: republishing ODRL (mature) is important."
... "use case doc evolving quite a bit"
... "first document is first draft -- no one claims is finished. stake in ground with ODRL"
... "point is that having first draft and having stakeholders is perfectly fine"
... "should not ask too much"

simon: "that sounds reasonable. let's go with first collection of use cases. Just publish for now."

ivan: "will still require a lot of time to transfer from wiki, etc. Vote etc"

benws2: "over time. Let's pursue in next call, possibly increase number of calls."

<victor> +1