See also: IRC log
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/06/27-poe-minutes
PROPOSED: Accept minutes of 27 June
RESOLUTION: Accept minutes of 27 June
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/07/04-poe-minutes
renato: There is a note of last week's meeting that wasn't a formal one (doe to agenda not being sent out in time)
renato: Invites michaelS to comment
michaelS: We have the Use cases
and reqs pages in the wiki
... We said we needed more info in some of hte use cases and we
have refrelcted those updates.
... Next step is to continue with the requirements.
... Some open discussions about the requirements.
renato: Any further commnets on the doc?
victor: Sabrina isn't here but
she said she needed more elaboration on UCs 9 and 14
... see
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2016Jul/0016.html
renato: Yes, but this is an evolving document.
victor: I think a few extra lines are needed.
<renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/#poe.uc.09-base-product
<renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/#poe.uc.14-a-vote-for-extended-relations
renato: These are short,
yes.
... So the question is do we need to put more words on them
before publication?
victor: If Ben can do that in the week then this won't delay things
Brian_Ulicny: Seeks clarity on
what's needed
... I can circle around with Ben this week...
renato: Please do that. I don't
want to hold up the document. We can add to the doc in
future.
... Yes, please ask him to add a couple of extra lines
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about timing
phila: Talks about time line. Doc needs to be ready on Wednesday if it's to be published on Thursday.
renato: We were hoping that the 3 docs (UCs, model and vocabs all get published at the same time)
<CarolineB> phila: why not wait until changes are made since ther eis a builtin delay for all
phila: If the docs are going out together, and we're not going to publish those 3 together this week, then there's no advantage in taking a conditional vote today.
renato: Do we want to publish all 3 together?
victor: I have a minor objection to publishing all three together. The model and vocabs are not to do with the use cases since the UC doc is about new UCs
renato: Because we are starting
with an existing base line doc, ODRL 2.1, we are not going to
put out the use cases and say that we have solved them all in
the model and vocab at the smae time.
... The UCR tells the community what we're planning to do -
enhancements to the ODRL specs - and we're also publishing the
starting point base lines specs.
... Publishing at the same time doesn't imply that the model
and vocab addresses all the UCs
victor: I understand the charter
is to lift from the existing base line.
... But there are some improvements that can be made on the
ODRL model that have to be discussed and the model and vocab
have to be modified by the UCR
... What is the problem in pblishing the UCR now?
... I just sent a mail to the list with comments on what we can
do to improve ODRL. It's a pity if we don't consider
that.
... My question is, is there any problem delaying the model
publication by a month?
michaelS: It would be good to
have such a pakcage as it think it gives a better
overview.
... I see a close link between the model and the vocab.
... The vocab adds salt to the basics of the model.
... If we agree that it is required to have a discussion on the
model before we publish, then OK to publish the UC now.
... How much work is required to publish the vocab
document?
renato: Technically we could
publish it today. We're waiting for a change to the back end
script that helps with the grouping.
... Then the question becomes, do we want to discuss the model
first?
victor: regarding the vocab, it's not so immediate. We have to merge a bunch of existing documents and I don't see how to do that.
<renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/
renato: We've done that, we
haven't just shared it yet.
... In that doc we have all the terms
... We haven't linked from the wiki yet.
... We're waiting for one more change.
... but we have done the merge.
... we added the JSON, the XML, the scnearios etc.
... actions for permissions, actions for duties etc. Those are
the groups we're thinking of. That's a change that I hope we
can do within a day or so.
... Therefore we can have all 3 ready next week.
... Looking at your mail, I'm happy to work through. That will
happen within the rest of the process over the coming
months.
... If we say let's wait a month, so we can address those
issues, that's an arbitrary time. We want to say here's the
base line, here are the UCs that we're going to look at.
... Hopefully that triggers more input from the
community.
<scribe> ACTION: Brian to work with Ben on improving UCs 9 and 14 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/11-poe-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-18 - Work with ben on improving ucs 9 and 14 [on Brian Ulicny - due 2016-07-18].
renato: We want to send out a whole package.
victor: I'm afraid that if the WD is published now, issues won't be addressed.
renato: Don't worry about that.
They will be discussed over the coming 12 months.
... These are the first public WD. There will be other
versions.
... There's a whole maturity level to go through.
phila: Talks about waiting until the package is complete next week.
victor: I think Ben was assigned
to come up with a new name. That was a while ago.
... This issue should have been closed before publication.
renato: That has been an action
item for Ben. He's not had time to address it.
... I think I'm right that even if we call it ODRL and decide
later to change it then we will be able to.
victor: It doesn't give a good impression to change the name after people have reviewed it under the old name.
renato: I agree, but we don't have a proposal for an alternative.
phila: I hope Brian can talk to Ben this week and see if he/TR can make progress on that.
renato: So we'll vote on all three next week.
<victor> +1
renato: If nothing changes
between now and next week, will you be OK with publishing?
Should the model be published.
... The FQWP is just the beginning
phila: phila Rambles on about process and why you can be sure that the doc will reflect commnets received.
renato: We'll vote on the model next week, but does anyone have any commnet on the doc now?
michaelS: There was one detail...
issue-18
<trackbot> Sorry, but issue-18 does not exist.
<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/18
michaelS: The wording ... issue
description ... is unclear to me.
... Ah, hang on... *when* is the key word.
... I got it on the 5th time#
renato: We can probably change that word.
renato: I think Simon's issue 17 is complete
issue-17
<trackbot> Sorry, but issue-17 does not exist.
renato: Some of us are using the GH issue tracker which allows us to link from the doc to the GH issue tracker.
renato: A reminder about TPAC.
September is nearly here.
... We can request a speaker phone for the room.
... But only if epople will want to dia in remotely.
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Attending_F2F1
renato: There's a section there to show if you want to dial in.
[Meeting Adjourned]