07:33:20 RRSAgent has joined #poe 07:33:20 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-irc 07:33:22 RRSAgent, make logs public 07:33:22 Zakim has joined #poe 07:33:24 Zakim, this will be 07:33:24 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 07:33:25 Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference 07:33:25 Date: 22 September 2016 07:33:43 RRSAgent, make logs public 07:34:05 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:TPAC2016 07:50:45 Chair: Renato,Ben 07:55:33 ivan has joined #poe 07:56:05 nandana has joined #poe 07:56:12 present+ 07:56:39 present+ 08:00:13 benws11111117 has joined #poe 08:00:53 present 08:00:56 present+ 08:01:10 phila has joined #poe 08:02:54 bob has joined #poe 08:03:17 present+ bob_bailey 08:03:44 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:TPAC2016 08:04:25 paulj has joined #poe 08:12:17 present+ 08:13:20 present+ phila 08:13:51 RRSAgent, make logs public 08:14:18 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:14:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html phila 08:14:22 present+ 08:15:02 present+ paulj, renato, simonstey, sabrina, Nandana, BobBailey 08:15:04 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:15:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html phila 08:15:10 nandana has joined #poe 08:15:16 Sabrian has joined #poe 08:15:16 present+ 08:15:27 present+ Sabrina 08:15:38 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:15:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html phila 08:15:48 Topic: scribe duties 08:15:54 scribe: phila 08:15:59 scribeNick: phila 08:16:06 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:16:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html phila 08:16:07 Sabrina has joined #poe 08:16:36 renato: Starts with a tour de table 08:17:39 ... I put in an overview history session to start with 08:18:01 ... I'll go through those, which I went through with the DPub IG earlier in the week 08:18:18 phila has changed the topic to: Agenda for 2016-09-22: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:TPAC2016 08:19:20 slides -> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/w3c-poe-wg-overview.pdf 08:23:43 ivan has joined #poe 08:25:34 renato: Talks about history, battles between different standards bodies, odd use cases etc. 08:26:13 ... On to the CG that created version 2 08:28:30 phila: How did the ExRML pan out in the end? 08:28:55 renato: We lost at MPEG, won at OMA. Went to IEEE etc. OASIS started a WG around this 08:29:03 ... But those groups didn't go anywhere 08:29:30 ... Only OMA and MPEG 21 that did something definite 08:30:08 ... OGC developed a DRM reference model 08:30:58 paulj: I wasn't sure whether the MPEG process was real. Content Guard covered everything. So hard to dig into it. 08:31:16 renato: MPEG is a RAND organisation, ODRL is royalty free 08:31:44 renato: MPEG has a patent 08:32:00 ivan has joined #poe 08:32:29 renato: Moving on to scope 08:32:39 ... CG specs are the baseline 08:32:52 ... Want to look at UCRs today and tomorrow 08:34:30 benws: Complete rule language... I don't want a complete rule language, but I do want to be able to combine statements 08:36:43 renato: Describes OWL -> HTML page system (Mo did that) 08:37:01 q+ 08:39:21 renato: Talks about profiles. We don't expect complete implementations, different communities will create different profiles. 08:39:29 ... Lots of new use cases 08:40:12 ... Maybe we should set a deadline for new use cases? 08:40:33 ack s 08:41:10 simonstey: You mentioned the script that generates HTML from OWL, is there some kind of regulation wrt the correctness of the transformation. 08:41:35 ... Is there some organisational/adamin step 08:41:51 michaelS has joined #poe 08:41:51 renato: No, it's just a hand crafted bit of scripting that Mo did in the CG. 08:42:12 ... We changed it recently for the SKOS collections and put that collection in a norder 08:42:20 s/a norder/an order/ 08:47:07 phila: We have a class called rule that isn't a Rule language 08:47:21 renato: This diagram is expected to be in the vocab spec 08:48:09 renato: Many terms were deprecated between 2 and 2.1 08:48:22 ... greater use of Creative Commons 08:48:39 ... Not using OMA URIs so there was some cleaning up 08:48:48 renato: On Expressions... 08:49:13 ... Examples in all serialisations 08:50:31 ... Need to discuss JSON-LD 08:50:39 ... And we need to promote profiles 08:50:50 ... IPTC RightsML is a good example 08:51:20 ... Only use one policy type, only this subset of actions etc. They can narrow the semantics of terms, but can't broaden its semantics 08:51:36 ... You can add new duties and constraints that are important for your community 08:51:58 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:51:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html phila 08:52:13 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:52:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html phila 08:52:47 renato: RightsML used by AP has an API 08:53:15 ... All of the content published by AP you can hit the API and get the licence for that content 08:59:37 +q 09:00:11 Sabrina: Do you have details of how they're using it in blockchains? 09:00:20 Sabrina: I'd be interested in that 09:00:31 renato: Monegraph is also interested in publishing music 09:00:51 ack s 09:01:20 simonstey: It's super interesting. I've created an account and uploaded a picture and created a sample licence 09:01:31 ... They're storing it on the BitCoin block chain 09:02:36 Sabrina: Did it cost you anything? 09:03:32 simonstey: No, it's free. I can create as many licences as I wish. 09:06:42 maybe related to http://data.open.ac.uk/licence-picker/?controller=picker&action=index 09:07:31 +q 09:07:59 bob: Asks about implications of mixing lots of assets that each have their own licence. 09:08:41 Sabrina: Simon and I have a national project starting in November, on that topic. What licence would you give a compound asset? We're working on the reasoning engine 09:08:43 ack s 09:09:21 simonstey: I think that's where the formal semantics should guide you in telling you how to combine. If you're combining, how should you dead with conflicts that arise. 09:09:38 ... As soon as there are some conflicting terms, you need some guidance. 09:10:41 renato: So that's the main background and history 09:11:09 ... Today and tomorrow, we have the agenda. The primary idea is that today in the next two sessions we look at the requirements in ore detail. 09:11:19 ... Also need to look at whether we want to adopt them. 09:11:29 ... Maybe some that have greater impact than others. 09:11:52 ... Asking for support for policy templates, temporal relations etc. 09:12:02 ... So we'll go through them one by one. 09:12:16 ... Paper on the wall to help us draw things out. 09:12:45 ... After afternoon teas we look at the Notes we've been talking about. We've promised a formal semantics doc 09:13:18 Sabrina: What's the plan beyond the end of the WG? 09:13:55 renato: We have the ODRL CG that can continue to discuss things. Maybe new profiles. 09:14:17 ... Can't produce more Notes/Recs but we can produce CG Reports 09:14:51 benws: Can Phil tell us... we write the docs... and then request they become Recs. What issues/hoops are there? 09:15:14 the implementations are the key thing 09:15:31 you need to have a wide review... reach a large audience 09:15:39 the eventual outcome is a vocab 09:15:48 we are not chartered to do AC 09:16:31 we could use https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-implementations-20130430/ as orientation 09:17:10 In the case of a vocab you need to show implementations to prove that people are using it 09:17:32 Each term should be used twice..... 09:17:57 These can be spread across different profiles 09:18:39 Timeline is designed to get you to finish the documents 09:19:02 Then you work on the implementations and go to the director with evidence of adoption 09:19:42 recursive process - going back to remove terms that are not used 09:19:48 This takes time.... 09:20:28 Phil hopes for updated publications based on the discussions here and then 1 or 2 revisions afterwards 09:21:20 A good spec has an extension mechanism 09:21:46 You can use this to meet the requirements 09:21:55 +q 09:22:03 ack s 09:22:20 simonstey: Extension mechanisms, makes sense. Profiles make sense for thata 09:22:59 ... You can extend the functionality. Think about fleshing our ODRL a little that way. Moving into the realm of extending cf. core. 09:23:11 ... The profiles part os a good path. 09:23:16 s/os/is/ 09:23:31 benws: On Profiles - are serialisations profiles? 09:23:34 phila: No. 09:23:55 Sabrina: You said two implementations. Does a profile count as an implementation. 09:25:58 phila: Talks about profiles being part of something else which would be the focus. 09:26:06 RRSAgent, draft minutes 09:26:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html phila 09:26:45 renato: Tomorrow it's more on the specs, using GH issues. See if we can assign people to take on things. 09:27:19 [Coffee Break] 09:27:23 RRSAgent, draft minutes 09:27:23 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html phila 09:33:06 renato has joined #poe 09:34:03 renato_ has joined #poe 09:46:41 renato has joined #poe 09:47:58 renato_ has joined #poe 09:51:40 renato has joined #poe 09:52:38 paulj has joined #poe 09:53:09 renato has joined #poe 09:54:29 renato has joined #poe 10:03:51 phila has joined #poe 10:04:00 benws has joined #poe 10:06:56 ivan has joined #poe 10:07:50 present+ Victor, Kerry 10:07:55 chair: Ben 10:08:07 nandana has joined #poe 10:08:30 present+ 10:08:32 present+ michaelS 10:08:35 kerry has joined #poe 10:08:43 scribe: kerry 10:08:47 present+ kerry 10:08:48 scribeNick: kerry 10:08:50 Sabrina has joined #poe 10:09:06 present+ bob_bailey 10:09:28 Topic: Requirements 10:09:32 present+ sabrina 10:09:51 benws: go thryu requirements 10:09:55 topic: requirements 10:10:10 ben: 1 and 3 are similar 10:10:49 benws: victor, number 1 comes from you -- [reads out] licence for an asset only people over 18 years 10:10:58 .... a filter on the assignee 10:11:16 victtor: yes 10:11:50 benws: and re3 is similar e.g. only targets equititues in the dataset -- ie referencing just a subset of the data 10:12:17 ...req 1 contrains the assignee and #3 on the data -- both could be handled as a "filter" constraint 10:12:23 simonstey could you mute too, please 10:12:49 ...perhaps just defign the asset more sclosely os ODRL does not have to scope what the target is. 10:13:24 .... but in my work you are given an identifier and you need to target and having to come up with a descrition is difficcult for out workflow 10:13:35 ...have you looked at contraints outside odrl? 10:14:10 victor: question is whther this is in or out? It would be nice to have in but it could be ok to be out 10:14:13 victor has joined #poe 10:14:43 paulj: what happens with odrl meets a contraint/entity it does not know? 10:15:06 benws: we would refer to its own namespace, eg a definition of database columns 10:15:22 present+ ericP 10:15:39 .... althgouhg "only 18 can watch this film" appeals to me to be inside -- it soulds odd outside 10:16:24 paulj: are we saying waht contraints could be written and how? 10:16:42 benws: we could be neutral 10:17:10 paulj: if we cannot do the verification (e.g has the authority, has the ticket) that is a problem 10:17:43 benws: it could go either way in drl - but it does not allow contraints on assignee or data target 10:18:05 paulj: it is the semantics of the experession, not the implementation 10:18:13 [agreement] 10:18:29 benws: does anyone else have any more comments on contraints? 10:18:50 renato: we would have to update the contraint model to be more flexible 10:19:20 phila: the implications are profound -- mentions "verifiable claims" task force that is in that space 10:19:29 fwiw, http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html#ExpressConformanceWithPolicy 10:19:44 paulj: but it does not matter to us -- we just need the expression, not the validation mechanism 10:20:25 Validation is outside of scope.... This is the work of the verifiable claims task group https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce 10:20:35 phila: if the duty is on the asset owner to verify, then we need to be able to say that the obligation is on the receiver to verify 10:21:28 renato: saying the assignee must verify is different to saying the applicant must have the property 10:21:59 present+ victor 10:22:04 phila: introduces eric prudhommeaux 10:22:42 paulj: the more i think about this -- it is a big deal ( refers t o an example about media) 10:23:10 benws: a cheap way would be to create a duty like "end user is an 18 year old" but this overloads end-user 10:23:41 renato: we have a contraint on the recipient of the right -- as long as we can implement age over 18 as a uri 10:23:57 renato: victor wants to generalise the contraint model 10:24:18 benws: but can we do this using the url method you mention? 10:24:30 one could define a SHACL shape for the assignee 10:24:32 Sabrina: is there also contratints on assets? 10:24:35 renato: no 10:25:10 ... there is a contraint type on the use of the assent, but not on the recipient at present 10:25:22 benws: with some balck magic somehow realtes to the assignee 10:26:02 renato: but they might be different parties. looks like we need to allo contraints on other parties not just end user 10:26:34 benws: by just using an existing constraint on permission will this do it all? 10:26:35 ericP has joined #poe 10:26:38 present+ 10:27:07 paulj: a list of exhaustive cases will be very long and we will wish we structured it better 10:27:29 benws: we have a simple model now -- will this become too complex? 10:27:48 Sabrina: you could potnetiall have contraints on party, assrt, everyone etc 10:28:05 paulj: yes, and on the system, a lot of ripple thru 10:28:36 victor: we have contexts like "industry" too, if we allow specific declaration 10:28:54 benws: i agree it would be good to pin them down 10:29:09 victor: this requires only onle more element in a constraint 10:29:25 Sabrina: agrees contraint needs more structure 10:29:48 renato: 2 things: updating constraint model and adding it to the other entities 10:29:58 constraint vs. scope? 10:30:18 samws: so do we need that all contraints say what kind they are? (e.g. part, asset). 10:30:47 ericP: [lost it] 10:31:11 renato: yes, and alo adding duties to publishers and others up the chain 10:31:19 s/alo/aslo/ 10:31:25 s/alo/also/ 10:31:34 renato: clearer -- do we want to do it? 10:31:59 samws: benefit is expressivity and accuracy -- cost is more complex objets all over the place 10:32:08 s.objets/objects/ 10:32:33 victor: in rdf this is not a complexity increase -- although it may be for others 10:32:47 phila: agrees -- easy in rdf 10:33:20 samws: yes painful in XML -- maybe we should pririties rdf as out main serialisation 10:33:27 s.out/our/ 10:33:33 s/out/our/ 10:33:57 phila: flattening it out into an xml tree should not be too hard. 10:34:05 some agreement 10:35:16 renato: taking note of R.DM.01 and R.DM.02 on butcher's paper 10:35:47 ...will extend constraint model and add constraints to party and to asset 10:35:53 ivan has joined #poe 10:36:25 resolution: extend constraint model and add constraints to party and to asset 10:36:43 benws has joined #poe 10:38:41 topic: R.DM.03 introduce policy template 10:39:04 renato: a template just says there is going to be an action but we do not know what it is yet 10:39:33 samws: odlr assumes you point from the policy to the asset,but we need to point from the asset to the policy 10:39:55 ... you could do an inverse but this is implicit -- should we make this explicit? 10:40:04 renato: do we have a reuquirement? 10:40:16 samws: it is inhereent in several 10:41:31 victor: [ puts on screen] 10:42:36 victor: I want you to see this text..[reads] this example , see the asset, licence, policy. But policy makes no reference to the asset and it needs to 10:43:13 renato: but we can only define the policy -- the rest defencs on the application world -- not sure how to do it in say xml 10:43:25 phila: what is wring with this? using dct:licence 10:43:46 renato: licence could be a set, template, 10:43:54 benws: inverse of t arget we need 10:44:20 benws: it is just the inverse of the target relationship 10:44:50 phila: licence is in iana link registry -- this works 10:45:10 benws: but might not be a licence -- could be something else 10:45:36 benws: "istargeteby"? 10:45:45 phila: "targetedBY" 10:46:00 .... but no -- no link from asset to policy 10:46:06 renato: agrees 10:46:38 benws: the last thing we want is to change the policy every time there is a new asset 10:47:05 phila: in poder it would bedescribedby 10:47:34 s/in poder it would bedescribedby/in POWDER it would be describedby 10:47:58 benws: we need to b e able to move from an asset to the policy that controls it -- need inverse of ordl:target relationship 10:48:29 ericP: powder did not have a link back from desribed object to desription 10:48:41 s/desription/description/ 10:49:06 s/poder/powder/ 10:50:00 [scribe notes that speaker samws above should all be read as "benws"] 10:51:17 [phila and eric discuss how powder works] 10:52:26 phila: suggests that poder may have some useful bits n it for this 10:52:49 benws: this is one form of templated policy: a policy type? 10:52:56 Sabrina: agrees 10:53:26 benws: so does it need more tying to templating -- will there be other properties left open for later instantiation? 10:54:20 victor: [explains example]... these properties need additional triples 10:55:11 victor: people assigningpolicies to assets know what kind of policy they need and htey know they need to fill in some fields 10:55:33 benws: is this an implementation issue -- does not affect odrl? 10:55:52 ... breaking it up into separate implementations for parts may not affect our model 10:56:13 s/samws/benws/g 10:56:22 victor: want a template allowing description of parties to b e added later 10:56:35 q+ to say ask if you're looking for interoperability between systems on these templates 10:56:36 renato: [restates] 10:57:01 benws: the quation is whther it is a policy before it is filled out? 10:57:48 renato: yes -- doe we want an incomplete policy (a template) to be a policy, requiring template fields to be instantiated before finalised? 10:58:18 victor: e.g. language resources communiity portal, using templates with some bits to be filled in 10:58:43 benws: yes, that is a user interface but does it matter to us that an unfinished policy is part of our language? 10:58:54 ericP: question of interoperability 10:59:13 q+ 10:59:41 q- 10:59:45 ack next 10:59:46 reanto: are there sytems being built tht want to exchange templates? 10:59:53 q+ kerry 11:00:12 Sabrina: importance of validation -- should validation reject all incomplete policies? 11:00:47 ack k 11:01:05 kerry: to me, this is useful if an incomplete policy is instantiated as a policy before it's completely filled in 11:02:29 ... i would expect it to be legally binding on e.g. subcontractors who can conform to a piece of it 11:04:06 resolved: we need an inverse of target to point from an asset to the policy 11:04:58 benws: for the rest this sounds like a draft , can a template do this? 11:05:08 Sabrina: but we need versioning too 11:05:39 renato: we need to focus on what we need to share, not the internal process that software can manage 11:05:52 victor: aiming for contract negotitation lifecycle 11:06:06 ericP: could say we might get to this 11:06:25 Sabrina: or it could be an implementation detail 11:06:28 +q 11:06:29 phila: agrees 11:07:35 ack s 11:07:41 phila: by bot including it as a requirement we are not preventing the draft /template to be used 11:08:00 simonstey: [missed, on telecon] 11:08:34 q+ to talk about validation 11:08:46 ... test cases could do this? define your own assignee to override certain property values 11:08:58 benws: i understand the direction -- may be complicated 11:09:45 benws: we do not have any use cases for this -- can we park it until we have better use cases that can be tested against using inheritence to implement templates 11:09:57 [agreement] 11:10:05 simonstey: was wondering whether ODRL's inheritance relation could be utilized for templating 11:10:32 ack me 11:10:32 phila, you wanted to talk about validation 11:10:42 resolution: requirement DM03 resolved as a call for improved use cases 11:11:10 phila: refers to work on shacl for validation against rdf 11:11:18 ericP: needs bnf grammar 11:11:25 renato: is on agenda 11:12:21 [ argument about time zones asnd lunch] 11:12:39 topic: support versioning of policies 11:12:53 benws: requirement does not seem to match underlying use case to me 11:13:14 ...but read requirement as it is... lets look at use case 04 11:14:48 q+ 11:14:55 benws: requirement seems to say we need to version policies which seems ok but maybe should refer to use case 04 11:15:49 ... would like to take requirement at face value first and come back to req for referring from a policy to relevant version of regulation 11:16:27 ... we iwll need to main history and replacement of policies but the question for me is whther that is any of our business -- can some other w3c thing be used? 11:16:50 phila: sucgets prov + hav and dublin core 11:16:59 eric: agrees 11:17:08 s/sucgests/ 11:17:19 s/sucgests/suggests/ 11:17:33 -> http://pav-ontology.github.io/pav/ PAV - Provenance, Authoring and Versioning 11:17:37 benws: but we need to check that it is valid 11:18:48 https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/ 11:18:53 ericP: look ... maybe owl:time helps (on rec track in sdwwg now) .. think about whther you need anything more formal 11:19:22 Sabrina: temporal information came up on a number of calls 11:19:40 benws: do we need slighlty slack dublin core terms or do we need more? 11:19:53 victor: mayve w3c prov does this all 11:20:19 https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/diagrams/starting-points.svg 11:20:50 [discussion about rpov terms isversionof, isreplacedby etc] 11:21:18 ericP: sometimes versioning breaks systems too easily 11:21:29 ...might be cheaper to just use new identifiers 11:22:33 benws: for for thisour needs we do not have strong enough set of use cases -- so i would be better to look at other ontologies 11:22:44 s/ i / it / 11:23:01 phila: we did have some requirements for setting validity period 11:23:07 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:23:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html kerry 11:23:32 benws: we needs some use cases -- i will write them 11:23:53 action: benws to write use cases(s) for versioning needs 11:23:59 Created ACTION-22 - Write use cases(s) for versioning needs [on Benedict Whittam Smith - due 2016-09-29]. 11:24:33 [some discussuion about how versioning and valid time should work] 11:24:50 +q 11:24:55 Sabrina: is there a workaround for now? 11:25:11 benws: lets park until i find the use case 11:25:12 ack next 11:25:12 q? 11:25:31 q- 11:25:45 ack next 11:26:18 simonstey: my use case is to uniquely identify a version of a policy 11:27:08 ... if you generate a policy you have a uri for it and i do not need a specific property fo the version nor that all the conditions expire at some time 11:27:30 q+ to talk about versioning 11:27:42 benws: could be one whereby you want to know what price we sold this for 6 months ago -- to travel from hte asset back in time? 11:27:59 ack me 11:27:59 phila, you wanted to talk about versioning 11:28:22 renato: easily implmented in a system -- question is whether we need to include it for interoperability 11:29:03 phila: explains W3C method of 2 uris -- fixed and latest 11:29:56 benws: looks like validity is the issue -- maybe we should provide our own terms.. does valvidity apply o a policy or a permission? 11:30:13 renato: for a permision can use normal constraint mechanism 11:30:32 benws: no, we need that this permission to do x is only valid in april or may 11:30:49 benws: i don't thnk it is covered 11:31:21 renato: can say from the first of april to 2nd may 11:32:02 benws: we mean thsi permission is only valid to 21 dec 2015 11:32:21 ... so you want to say that the permission that was there is no longer valid 11:32:29 Sabrina: why not do a new policy? 11:33:35 [discussion between ben and sabrina and that should this be an expiroy on the policy, not at the level of the permission?] 11:33:44 +q 11:34:57 simonstey: a policy may have different time permissions attached to different permissions in the policy, even though the policy itself remains valid 11:35:28 Sabrina: if there is no time beteen the permission being inactive and the policy being inactive -- they can be the same 11:35:43 benws: we do need to manage the notion of whther a poliscy is valid 11:36:21 resolution: we do need to manage the idea of validiy and park for later what is the realtion bete=ween validity of permissions and policy 11:36:41 q+ 11:37:20 simonstey: we do need that multiple permissaions can expire at differnt times and the policy remains active at least until all permissions expire and maybe even afterwards 11:37:51 q- 11:38:12 benws: but we might end up with empty husks of policies with no permissions 11:38:30 come back to thsi when we have reviewd requirements relating permissions to policy 11:39:27