Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference -- 27 Jun 2016

<renato> any volunteers to scribe: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Scribes

<scribe> scribe: phila

<renato> Thanks Phila!

<scribe> scribeNick: phila

<CarolineB> having to install webex - sorry

Last wewek's minutes

<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/06/20-poe-minutes

PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/06/20-poe-minutes

+0 (absent)

RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/06/20-poe-minutes

<Brian_Ulicny> +1

Spec name

renato: Deferred (again)

Use Cases

renato: We havea Michael and Simon here so what's the update please?

michaelS: In the discussion about how to proceed with the Res, we also discussed the UCs
... if you look at the comments added, there are a couple of cases where we need either descriptive use case...
... some have no clear descriptoive use case, or we need a UC that explains better what the UC is
... It may be too short, too few facts and details
... 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
... 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
... So this is the starting point to get more precise narrative
... As a reminder, we use UCs for the Primer document we're expecting to create
... What's the use case, how can this be solved etc.

renato: I think Ivan suggested that the UC-Note should concentrate on getting some good use cases
... gert a good set of nice use cases and then we can look at requirements
... 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

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

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.

<renato> data web https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/

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

<victor> 50 use cases in SDW!

renato: There's a lot in those docs. It's the quality that's instructive, not the quantity.
... We really want to get the FPWD of the UCR out soon
... Given that background, is there anything that the editors want to add to the current discussion?
... Is it worthwhile looking at a few of the UCs now to see which ones we want more info from.

<simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/

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
... They need some polishing. If they use actula RDF then I can use code tags to polish it a little.
... We could comment out the reqs part if we want to ahead of the FPWD

renato: Can we try and work on some new time line now?
... So that we can vote on it as the FPWD?
... Obviously some not here. But for those that are, can we give people a week to update their use cases?

<Brian_Ulicny> +1

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
... So we really need UC and req providers to review

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

phila: mentioned ReSpec's issue feature and asked whether individual UC contributors know they need to do more

victor: I find the direct "please can you provide more" is enough

renato: I think it needs a combination of individual e-mails and list messages
... 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.
... Anything else michaelS and simonstey?
... While we're talking about use cases and Vicotr is here...
... I read through your e-mail about requirements and it is clearer now what you're asking for
... 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
... is that what you wanted to say?

victor: The original req from the UC - some regard the party, some the asset.
... 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.

<renato> Victors email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2016Jun/0032.html

victor: 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.

renato: So is that a new use case?

victor: There is one UC in which you find at least 2 requirements that are similar.
... 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

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
... It helps us see the reason for the change (to ODRL).
... I appreciate the proposed solution - that's terrific.
... It sounds like the proposal could work, but it might impact backward compatibility.
... Our first decision is whether X is a good use case or not.
... Then we have to look at how accepting it might affect compatibility/design

victor: I wasn't aware that backward compatibility was necessary, only desireable
... This UC was also in an earlier Community Group that led to a big implementation
... 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.

renato: I'm not saying we have to keep backward compatibility, but we need to be aware of the impact of changes.
... Sticking to the4 UC is the best for now.

victor: We can mark the 18 requiremnets from this UC where I think the existing model is broken or might break backwards compatibility.
... I can expand the UCs but they're linked to a full document.

renato: Any other comments or queries?

Issues and Actions

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

Nothing newly added to the issues and actions

<michaelS> got it too

phila: Suggests that simonstey and michaelS use the issue tracker and ReSpec to track the UCs that need more work

AOB

-> http://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp-licence-compatibility-published_v1_0.xlsx Euro data portal matrix

<simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/#poe.uc.08-atomic-understanding-of-common-licenses

phila: Points to work at the European Data Portal on rendering well known licences as atomic data points

renato: Any commnets on that or any other other business for today?

[Crickets]

<Brian_Ulicny> Next week is the 4th of July holiday in the US

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

<Brian_Ulicny> +1

renato: How many people will not be able to make it next week?

phila: Will be here

<smyles> i will not be able to make it

renato: OK, I think we'll go ahead with the call
... If Brian or Stuart has any specific commnets, please make them online
... I think Stuart had one or two UCs in there. If you do update them, please let us know.
... Just a quick update on the otehr 2 docs - model and vocab expressions.
... The info model is close to go (I'm talking to Serena later)
... The vocab doc is getting close. Just getting the structure working properly as it's an automated process.
... They shoiuld both be ready to go live with the UCR
... The otehr 2 are on track as they're more or less verbatim copies of the current ODRL specs

victor: By next week/soon, an early working draft will be discussed?

renato: The WG has to vote that they're happy for a doc to go out as a First Public Working Draft

phila: Goes on about FPWD process, northerm hemisphere summer break etc.

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.
... The charter makes it clear the the FPWDs should be published at the same time. The base line is ODRL 2.1, not zero.
... People can see where we're heading
... What the new features will be etc.
... OK, all done for today. UC authors, please brush up your narratives...

victor: When is it expected to start on the formalisation?

renato: That's up to the editors... ;-)
... And you're one of those so you can start when you think you have enough info to do so.
... You can have your own chats and calls as co-editors and then make your proposals to the wider group.

[Adjourned]

- DRAFT -

Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

27 Jun 2016

Attendees

Contents

Last wewek's minutes

Spec name

Use Cases

Issues and Actions

AOB

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output