11:54:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
11:54:56 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/27-poe-irc
11:54:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
11:54:58 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
11:54:58 <Serena> Serena has joined #poe
11:54:59 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
11:55:00 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
11:55:01 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
11:55:01 <trackbot> Date: 27 June 2016
11:55:09 <renato> RRSAgent, make logs public
11:55:18 <renato> present+
11:56:46 <Serena> present+
11:58:21 <simonstey> present+
11:58:39 <phila> present+ phila
11:58:46 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
11:59:25 <James> James has joined #poe
12:00:03 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
12:00:07 <renato> regrets: sabrina
12:00:59 <James> present+
12:01:26 <renato> any volunteers to scribe: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Scribes
12:01:30 <michaelS> present+
12:01:56 <CarolineB> CarolineB has joined #poe
12:02:01 <phila> scribe: phila
12:02:03 <Brian_Ulicny> Brian_Ulicny has joined #poe
12:02:04 <CarolineB> present+
12:02:10 <Brian_Ulicny> present+
12:02:21 <renato> Thanks Phila!
12:02:23 <phila> scribeNick: phila
12:02:37 <phila> chair: Renato
12:03:40 <phila> regrets+ Ivan
12:05:00 <CarolineB> having to install webex - sorry
12:05:23 <phila> Topic: Last wewek's minutes
12:05:25 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/06/20-poe-minutes
12:05:41 <phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/06/20-poe-minutes
12:05:45 <phila> +0 (absent)
12:06:02 <phila> RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/06/20-poe-minutes
12:06:06 <Brian_Ulicny> +1
12:06:15 <phila> Topic: Spec name
12:06:23 <phila> regrets+ Ben
12:06:34 <phila> renato: Deferred (again)
12:06:39 <victor> victor has joined #poe
12:06:42 <phila> Topic: Use Cases
12:06:56 <victor> present+ victor
12:07:00 <phila> renato: We havea Michael and Simon here so what's the update please?
12:07:30 <phila> michaelS: In the discussion about how to proceed with the Res, we also discussed the UCs
12:07:46 <phila> ... if you look at the comments added, there are a couple of cases where we need either descriptive use case...
12:08:00 <phila> ... some have no clear descriptoive use case, or we need a UC that explains better what the UC is
12:08:10 <phila> ... It may be too short, too few facts and details
12:08:45 <phila> ... So we had some discussion and we may need to go back to the UCs and invite the contributors to look at the reqs and see if the reqs show we need better UCs
12:09:16 <phila> ... In general, we have some UCs with a short descriptiona dn then a long list of requirements. We felt that the Reqs should be extended into use cases, maybe splitting up
12:09:28 <phila> ... So this is the starting point to get more precise narrative
12:09:42 <phila> ... As a reminder, we use UCs for the Primer document we're expecting to create
12:09:51 <phila> ... What's the use case, how can this be solved etc.
12:10:37 <phila> renato: I think Ivan suggested that the UC-Note should concentrate on getting some good use cases
12:10:49 <phila> ... gert a good set of nice use cases and then we can look at requirements
12:11:16 <phila> renato: As Michael pointed out, there are some use cases need a bit more work to describe the problem that is needed to be solved and therefore what new features need to be added to the language
12:11:37 <renato> spatial https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/
12:11:45 <phila> renato: I did point out that there are 3 examples of UCs that look lkike ones we've looked at before. The spatial group, for example, has a set of UCs.
12:11:50 <renato> data web https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/
12:12:00 <renato> shacl https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-ucr/
12:12:10 <victor> 50 use cases in SDW!
12:12:24 <phila> renato: There's a lot in those docs. It's the quality that's instructive, not the quantity.
12:12:47 <phila> renato: We really want to get the FPWD of the UCR out soon
12:13:07 <phila> renato: Given that background, is there anything that the editors want to add to the current discussion?
12:13:45 <phila> renato: Is it worthwhile looking at a few of the UCs now to see which ones we want more info from.
12:13:47 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/
12:14:17 <phila> simonstey: I looked at the current doc we have on GH. You cen see the ones, ahem, from Ben, that are too brief that look like they need more elaboration
12:14:59 <phila> simonstey: They need some polishing. If they use actula RDF then I can use code tags to polish it a little.
12:15:23 <phila> simonstey: We could comment out the reqs part if we want to ahead of the FPWD
12:15:47 <phila> renato: Can we try and work on some new time line now?
12:16:04 <phila> ... So that we can vote on it as the FPWD?
12:16:29 <michaelS> q+
12:16:29 <phila> ... Obviously some not here. But for those that are, can we give people a week to update their use cases?
12:16:40 <Brian_Ulicny> +1
12:16:46 <phila> ack m
12:16:52 <michaelS> q-
12:17:28 <phila> michaelS: Just to remind people. the invitation to look at the reqs document. It's not only going over what we have in the UC page, but if to cover a requirement, whether a corresponding UC exists
12:17:41 <phila> ... So we really need UC and req providers to review
12:17:47 <phila> q+
12:18:35 <phila> renato: The other thing we could do is, in the UC Note, for ones that have requirements that have been tagged as needing more, we can tag them with a big red issue
12:18:56 <phila> ack me
12:19:25 <smyles> smyles has joined #poe
12:19:31 <smyles> present+ smyles
12:21:03 <phila> phila: mentioned ReSpec's issue feature and asked whether individual UC contributors know they need to do more
12:21:15 <phila> victor: I find the direct "please can you provide more" is enough
12:21:47 <phila> renato: I think it needs a combination of individual e-mails and list messages
12:22:35 <phila> renato: So for the editors... will send out nicely worded e-mails to the UC authors, giving them until next meeting which of those have been flagged as needing more clarifictaion and get them to do those.
12:22:55 <phila> renato: Anoything else michaelS and simonstey?
12:23:26 <phila> s/Anoy/Any/
12:23:40 <phila> renato: While we're talking about use cases and Vicotr is here...
12:23:53 <phila> ... I read through your e-mail about requirements and it is clearer now what you're asking for
12:24:47 <phila> renato: I thought originally you just wanted to constrain parties, but no, you want to make the algorithm even more general to define anything that needs to be evaluated as true or false
12:25:02 <phila> renato: is that what you wanted to say?
12:25:22 <phila> victor: The original req from the UC - some regard the party, some the asset.
12:25:44 <phila> ... In addition, I believe the mechanism to make it general is possible. This has to be dicussed at a later stage, not now, but I think the req needs to be there.
12:26:25 <renato> Victors email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2016Jun/0032.html
12:26:31 <phila> ... Th second step of code looks at how to provide permission to access adult material. That only requires a small change. For now I'd be happy just to see the req added.
12:26:41 <phila> renato: So is that a new use case?
12:27:06 <phila> victor: There is one UC in which you find at least 2 requirements that are similar.
12:27:42 <phila> ... I think it's good as it is. I was hinking of reordering the reqs but it's OK. Although it does lead to 18 requirements
12:28:03 <phila> renato: It would be grateful if there were 18 paragraphs of text that led to 3 reqs. So a bit more narraive would be useful
12:28:10 <phila> q+ to ask about adult access
12:28:24 <phila> renato: It helps us see the reason for the change 9to ODRL).
12:28:31 <phila> s/9/(
12:28:43 <phila> renato: I appreciate the proposed solution - that's terrific.
12:28:59 <phila> ... It sounds like the proposal could work, but it might impact backward compatibility.
12:29:12 <phila> ... Our first decision is whether X is a good use case or not.
12:29:29 <phila> ... Then we have to look at how accepting it might affect compatibility/design
12:29:43 <phila> victor: I wasn't aware that backward compatibility was necessary, only desireable
12:30:16 <phila> victor: This UC was also in an earlier Community Group that led to a big implementation
12:31:01 <phila> victor: OK, we have 25h nakes for constraint. We can extend that list to keep backward compatibility, but I also think we could reduce the length of that list.
12:31:24 <phila> renato: I'm not saying we have to keep backward compatibility, but we need to be aware of the impact of changes.
12:31:31 <phila> renato: Sticking to the4 UC is the best for now.
12:32:03 <phila> victor: We can mark the 18 requiremnets from this UC where I think the existing model is broken or might break backwards compatibility.
12:32:25 <phila> ... I can expand the UCs but they're linked to a full document.
12:32:45 <phila> q-
12:33:02 <phila> renato: Any otehr comments or queries?
12:33:23 <phila> s/otehr/other/
12:33:32 <phila> Topic: Issues and Actions
12:33:53 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open
12:34:29 <phila> Nothing newly added to the issues and actions
12:34:32 <phila> q+
12:35:33 <phila> ack me
12:35:36 <michaelS> got it too
12:35:49 <phila> phila: Suggests that simonstey and michaelS use the issue tracker and ReSpec to track the UCs that need more work
12:35:59 <phila> Topic: AOB
12:36:01 <phila> q+
12:36:23 <phila> -> http://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp-licence-compatibility-published_v1_0.xlsx Euro data portal matrix
12:37:48 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/#poe.uc.08-atomic-understanding-of-common-licenses
12:38:12 <phila> phila: Points to work at the European Data Portal on rendering well known licences as atomic data points
12:38:43 <phila> renato: Any commnets on that or any other other business for today?
12:39:04 <phila> [Crickets]
12:39:21 <Brian_Ulicny> Next week is the 4th of July holiday in the US
12:39:26 <phila> renato: I'll call the meeting to an end and see if we can get the first set of UCs ready for us to review as an FPWD next week
12:39:43 <Brian_Ulicny> +1
12:39:46 <phila> renato: How many people will not be able to make it next week?
12:39:53 <phila> phila: Will be here
12:39:59 <smyles> i will not be able to make it
12:40:08 <phila> renato: OK, I think we'll go ahead with the call
12:40:27 <phila> renato: If Brian or Stuart has any specific commnets, please make them online
12:40:44 <phila> ... I think Stuart had one or two UCs in there. If you do update them, please let us know.
12:40:53 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:40:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/27-poe-minutes.html phila
12:41:10 <phila> renato: Just a quick update on the otehr 2 docs - model and vocab expressions.
12:41:23 <phila> ... The info model is close to go (I'm talking to Serena later)
12:41:38 <phila> ... The vocab doc is getting close. Just getting the structure working properly as it's an automated process.
12:41:49 <phila> ... They shoiuld both be ready to go live with the UCR
12:42:03 <phila> ... The otehr 2 are on track as they're more or less verbatim copies of the current ODRL specs
12:42:23 <phila> victor: By next week/soon, an early working draft will be discussed?
12:42:45 <phila> renato: The WG has to vote that they're happy for a doc to go out as a First Public Working Draft
12:42:47 <phila> q+
12:42:53 <phila> ack me
12:45:23 <phila> phila: Goes on about FPWD process, northerm hemisphere summer break etc.
12:45:49 <phila> renato: The FPWDs of the model and vocabs are more or less copies of ODRL 2.1 and the UCs then show what new changes will be worked on.
12:46:11 <phila> renato: The charter makes it clear the the FPWDs should be published at the same time. The base line is ODRL 2.1, not zero.
12:46:22 <phila> ... People can see where we're heading
12:46:27 <phila> ... What the new features will be etc.
12:46:42 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:46:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/27-poe-minutes.html phila
12:47:01 <phila> renato: OK, all done for today. UC authors, please brush up your narratives...
12:47:16 <phila> victor: When is it expected to start on the formalisation?
12:47:27 <phila> renato: That's up to the editors... ;-)
12:47:49 <phila> ... And you're one of those so you can start when you think you have enough info to do so.
12:48:16 <phila> renato: You can have your own chats and calls as co-editors and then make your proposals to the wider group.
12:49:18 <phila> [Adjourned]
12:49:36 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:49:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/27-poe-minutes.html phila
12:49:39 <Serena> Serena has left #poe
12:51:37 <phila> present+ CarolineB, renato, Michael, Serena, James, Brian, Simon
12:51:42 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:51:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/27-poe-minutes.html phila
15:01:42 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe
15:17:48 <benws> benws has joined #poe
15:27:16 <benws2> benws2 has joined #poe
16:44:57 <benws> benws has joined #poe
18:47:43 <benws> benws has joined #poe
20:23:47 <benws> benws has joined #poe
20:51:32 <benws2> benws2 has joined #poe