Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

<renato> Scribe volunteers: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Scribes

<phila> scribe: michaelS

<phila> scribeNick: michaelS

TOPIC minutes last call - 8 August 2016

<renato> approve minutes: last meeting minutes

<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/08/08-poe-minutes

<phila> scribe: phila

<scribe> scribeNick: phila

+0 (not present

RESOLUTION: Minutes of 8 August arrpoved

UCR

renato: We've been going through these for the last few weeks and trying to work out what the reqs would be from them.
... There are 4 sets of UCs left
... One from Mo, 3 from phila, one from James
... Only Phil is here so we need to talk about those

<Brian_Ulicny> Has the Webex info changed? I can't log in.

<michaelS> scribe: michaelS

<renato> UC.03

<renato> https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#embargoedDataset

UC.03

<Brian_Ulicny> Says meeting is canceled on Webex using old link.

phila: outlined the use case

<renato> Brian...click on link from here: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160822

phila: I publish my data now and make it available under a new policy a specific period later

<renato> https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#relTimeConstraint

phila: the dates are relative dates, relative to the date of a first publishing

<simonstey> +q

smyles: will the data be published now and the future date be added

p

phila: the future date will be added as an intention, not as strict statement

<simonstey> -q

smyles: a news embargo is different: the permission to publish later is added at the time of the initial publication

renato: this may relate to provenence considerations

phila: complex would be: a policy A expires on date 1 and a second policy B which starts on date 1+1.

<simonstey> +

<simonstey> +q

phila: the first policy should not be stricly related to policy B

simonstey: feels that can be solved this way: having a time constraint closing on date 1 and a permission starting on date 1 +1day, all in one policy
... a relative statement could be "the permission B gets active after constraint X has expired"

<simonstey> primer ;)

phila: sound interesting, will we explain somewhere that this can be done already with ODRL
... such use cases should be documented somewhere - I need this for my project

<simonstey> +q

<simonstey> -q

<simonstey> +1 to renato's comment

UC.06

<renato> UC.06 https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#openPhacts

phila: explained the use case
... all what OpenPHACTS does is making the user aware where the data come from and the source must be made explicit

<simonstey> +q

phila: his concern is about merging policies about different data sources

<simonstey> -q

phila: any combination should be made clear

<phila> michaelS: Each policy comes with an asset

<phila> ... Do we have something to establish relationships between assets

<phila> ... as a policy may relate to multiple assets

<phila> renato: We don't have a way of describing those relationships

<phila> ... they're outside the scope of ODRL at the moment

renato: no, we don't have something for that purpose

smyles: the UC has more to do how we want to merge different policies
... what are the rules for processing multiple policies

phila: We have to expose what the original asset creators had defined
... e.g. three sources provide images and they are licensed as a package.
... and a combined policy is applied to the package

<phila> michaelS: That raises the question of where are the rules appluies for combining policies?

<phila> ... What Stuart said is how should this be processed on the receiver says

<phila> ... Phil says there might be a package with a combined policy.#

<phila> ... I think there should be a set of policies or a combined policy. If there is a combined one then no more needs to be said.

<phila> ... the party that creates the combined policy takes the risk of merging it correctly.

renato: a merged policy may point at the original policies

phila: this is more a provenance issue than a POE issue

sabrina: This reminded her of other use cases: if multiple data sets are added to a new asset the original policies should be trackable

<Brian_Ulicny> I agree with Sabrina: provenance and time are very important for real world permissions.

sabrina: the merged policies should have temporal constraints and governance data

phila: agreed to Sabrina: these two facets should be discussed, either clarified or added for ODRL

renato: will keep track of that

UC.08

<renato> https://www.w3.org/TR/poe-ucr/#atomicLicense

phila: Explained the UC in detail

sabrina: Simon and she are working in this area

phila: looks forward to discuss that UC with them on 30 September in Vienna
... hope to get more specific requirements - coming then back to ODRL

Actual Requirements

renato: No more contributors of UCs are present at this call

yes

<phila> scribe: phila

scribe: Ben was working on this - did he talk to you, Simon?

<simonstey> no /:

<simonstey> but I can take over

michaelS: What was he working on exactly?

renato: We've talked about draft reqs, we've captured a few of them in the minutes, we want to get the reqs into the wiki
... that misses a lot of the context. We want to document the requirements in the UCR
... So we can discuss and agree/not on them

michaelS: So the wiki requirements is the initial target

renato: Yes, not the ED just yet

michaelS: I've checked, this doc hasn't changed since 23 June

renato: So we can maybe go back and look for these
... What I'll do then is go through tle most recent meetins and note the discussion and note the consensus on what the reqs were
... Any otehr commnets on use cases and requirements?

[None]

Issues and Actions

renato: No new ones recently

phila: Have his reasons for not being able to complete action-12

close action-12

<trackbot> Closed action-12.

sabrina: I spoke to Ben last week and the end result is that I'll be at TPAC

renato: Any change needed to UC 12?

sabrina: No, I think it's all about the provenance aspect we were talking about earlier
... So I think TPAC is the place for this, So we can close that action

close action-21

<trackbot> Closed action-21.

AOB

renato: We have a draft agenda for TPAC

<renato> TPAC agenda

<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:TPAC2016

renato: Any comments on that?
... We have prov on the agenda coming from today.
... BAsic plan is to go through the requirements on day 1
... So clear underdstanding about changes to be made
... And any other new work that we haven't covered yet?
... Things like formal semantics, primer, common licneces
... And then Friday more about actual design choices.
... So that's the rough break down
... Also note that the Digital Publishing IG wants to join us on Friday to present their use cases.
... Includes news from BSIG
... I'm giving a talk to them on Tuesday on POE
... Might get some new UCs from that

phila: It's only 4 weeks ...
... When might there be noew publications after TPAC?

michaelS: Next milestone is LCCR in April

phila: That means you're finished :-)

renato: If we leave Lisbon with clarity then...
... 2 months for the first iteration of changes
... so end Nov

phila: Then with another iteration in, say Feb, that gets you to LCCR in April

renato: If no more commnets on TPAC - any other OB?

[None]

renato: So we'll close the meeting there
... Thanks everyone