12:09:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:09:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-irc
12:09:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:09:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:09:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
12:09:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:09:09 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:09:09 <trackbot> Date: 17 October 2016
12:09:19 <victor> present+ victor
12:09:19 <phila> scribe: Brian
12:09:23 <phila> scribeNick: Brian_Ulicny
12:09:46 <phila> Resolution: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/10/10-poe-minutes
12:10:14 <phila> regrets+ Renato, Sabrina
12:10:21 <Brian_Ulicny> Simon has gone through all the requirements based on the TPAC.
12:10:50 <phila> present+ Ben, Brian, Caroline, Michael, Phil, Simon, Victor
12:11:00 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:11:02 <Brian_Ulicny> benws: "the list of requirements on the sheet were the ones that had been accepted"
12:11:06 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:11:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-minutes.html phila
12:11:35 <benws> q?
12:11:37 <smyles> smyles has joined #poe
12:11:39 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements
12:11:44 <phila> chair: Ben
12:11:54 <michaelS> q+
12:12:00 <Brian_Ulicny> Simon asks the group before the next call to go through the wiki requirements and check whether Simon has correctly captured the status of the requirements.
12:12:03 <Serena> present+ Serena
12:12:11 <victor> ok, so we are supposed to read this again and provide feedback.
12:12:24 <phila> present+ smyles
12:12:25 <smyles> present+
12:13:18 <Brian_Ulicny> Simon directs attention especially to the blue colored requirements.
12:13:33 <phila> q+
12:13:39 <phila> ack m
12:13:47 <Brian_Ulicny> So group is enjoined to please look at the use case doc and requirements.
12:14:07 <James> James has joined #poe
12:14:18 <James> present +
12:14:40 <simonstey> +q
12:14:46 <simonstey> present+
12:14:52 <Brian_Ulicny> Michael mentions that the contributor of the use case should make sure that the use cases and requirements line up.
12:15:13 <Brian_Ulicny> Michael "especially the ones marked agreed without discussion"
12:15:18 <Serena> q?
12:15:28 <Brian_Ulicny> benws: "how could they be agreed without discussion?"
12:15:55 <simonstey> zakim, who's here?
12:15:55 <Zakim> Present: victor, Ben, Brian, Caroline, Michael, Phil, Simon, Serena, smyles, simonstey
12:15:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see James, smyles, Zakim, RRSAgent, CarolineB, benws, Brian_Ulicny, victor, michaelS, phila, Serena, simonstey, trackbot
12:16:23 <phila> ack me
12:16:25 <Brian_Ulicny> michael: "they were assumed to be agreed based on call to discuss"
12:16:35 <michaelS> q-
12:16:41 <Brian_Ulicny> Phil: "am I supposed to be looking at wiki or editor's draft?"
12:16:50 <michaelS> q
12:16:54 <michaelS> q-
12:17:00 <Brian_Ulicny> Simon: "look at wiki"
12:17:31 <Brian_Ulicny> benws: "agreed that wiki is canonical version"
12:17:58 <benws> "for now ...2
12:18:39 <Brian_Ulicny> phil: do we need to assign action items?   Or agree that after a certain date, everything will be transferred from wiki to editor's draft.
12:18:52 <Brian_Ulicny> "we need to concentrate the mind"
12:19:45 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "there's only one requirement left that has 'agreed without discussion'"
12:20:20 <michaelS> q+
12:20:24 <Brian_Ulicny> has to do with notes and formal semantics
12:20:30 <benws> q?
12:20:42 <Brian_Ulicny> michael: "on lowest part of page, we have a 'needs consideration'"
12:20:53 <Brian_Ulicny> "three have undefined status -- only proposed"
12:21:09 <Brian_Ulicny> "so are they still under consideration"
12:21:34 <Brian_Ulicny> Simon: "no, I forgot to change status.  Discussed on 23d.  Will change"
12:21:37 <benws> q?
12:21:40 <michaelS> q-
12:21:48 <simonstey> q-
12:22:09 <Brian_Ulicny> benws: "let's move on to tech discussion - constraints on constraints"
12:22:15 <Brian_Ulicny> "three possibilities"
12:22:25 <Brian_Ulicny> "let's take use case of embargo"
12:22:45 <Brian_Ulicny> "one suggestion: create an emargo"
12:22:53 <michaelS> q+
12:23:14 <simonstey> q+
12:23:16 <Brian_Ulicny> "another solution (ivan): create two kinds of has constraint property -- one like we already have, another a qualified containt"
12:23:30 <Brian_Ulicny> "third option: chain constraints together"
12:23:39 <benws> q?
12:23:45 <Brian_Ulicny> "any other options?"
12:24:08 <Brian_Ulicny> victor: "sent an example earlier this am as Sparql query"
12:24:23 <victor> http://cosasbuenas.es/static/ComplexrestrictionswithSPARQL.pdf
12:24:39 <Brian_Ulicny> victor posts suggestion
12:25:03 <Brian_Ulicny> victor: "requires sparql endpoint"
12:25:04 <simonstey> which is actually SHACL
12:25:09 <Brian_Ulicny> "using SPIN"
12:25:31 <Brian_Ulicny> "example is self-explanatory"
12:25:56 <Brian_Ulicny> benws: "isn't this an example of the first use case - creation of a complex object"
12:26:08 <phila> q+ to say that any one of those three objections on their own out this solution
12:26:09 <Brian_Ulicny> victor: "Yes that's right"
12:26:18 <benws> q?
12:26:35 <phila> ack m
12:26:59 <Brian_Ulicny> michael: "i could only join meeting by audio in lisbon"
12:27:08 <Brian_Ulicny> "can't understand model behind these examples"
12:27:22 <Brian_Ulicny> "would be great help for everyone on the call"
12:27:33 <Brian_Ulicny> benws: "I will publish some example"
12:27:54 <Brian_Ulicny> "existing constraint model allows contraint only on one predicate or property"
12:28:15 <Brian_Ulicny> "let's say there's an embargo on extract from football match"
12:28:31 <Brian_Ulicny> "need to know end of event time and offset interval"
12:28:54 <Brian_Ulicny> "our existing constraint model can only handle one parameter"
12:29:35 <Brian_Ulicny> benws: "the first model is where object of predicate is a complex item -- e.g. an embargo object"
12:30:48 <Brian_Ulicny> "second option allows two types of constraint: one standard, the second is qualified constraint qualified by external object"
12:31:02 <Brian_Ulicny> "inject the additional constraints into the external object"
12:31:23 <Brian_Ulicny> "third option: multiple constraints chained together"
12:31:26 <phila> q?
12:31:37 <phila> ack s
12:31:43 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "have a lot to say"
12:32:10 <Brian_Ulicny> "before we introduce fancy constraints, we need to understand what we want ODRL to be/allow"
12:32:18 <Brian_Ulicny> "do we want to do constraint checking?"
12:32:28 <Brian_Ulicny> "do we want to verify that constraints hold?"
12:33:03 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: are we just concerned with expressiveness?
12:33:45 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
12:34:01 <Brian_Ulicny> "SHACL working group output could be used to express constraints"
12:34:37 <Brian_Ulicny> "if we go with chaining, which looks attractive,...there are problems"
12:34:44 <Brian_Ulicny> "looping, for example"
12:34:59 <smyles> q+
12:35:06 <Brian_Ulicny> "i really want to discourage going down chaining route"
12:35:29 <Brian_Ulicny> phil: "whichever option is chosen, need to build it"
12:35:55 <Brian_Ulicny> "someone should try to implement this stuff -- W3C suggests that you need to do this stuff"
12:36:10 <Brian_Ulicny> benws: "I am writing code around this"
12:36:34 <phila> ack me
12:36:34 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to say that any one of those three objections on their own out this solution
12:36:41 <Brian_Ulicny> benws: "can simon provide some concrete examples of dangers of chaining?"
12:36:47 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "yes"
12:37:30 <Brian_Ulicny> phil: "problems listed in the PDF show why this solution is not the right one"
12:37:46 <phila> ack sm
12:38:01 <Brian_Ulicny> sm: "plea for non-complex constraints"
12:38:25 <Brian_Ulicny> "video editors have these constraints all the time"
12:39:13 <Brian_Ulicny> "often an embargo is turned from relative time to concrete time: embargo will definitely be over by x o'clock"
12:39:31 <simonstey> +q
12:39:35 <Brian_Ulicny> benws: "embargoes are not the only complex constraint"
12:39:44 <Brian_Ulicny> "payments are another example"
12:39:55 <benws> q?
12:40:29 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "regarding renato's chaining example, not sure if example is complex enough"
12:41:02 <simonstey>     odrl:constraint [       a odrl:Constraint ;       odrl:operator odrl:eq ;       odrl:event <http://epl.com/vocab/afterMatch> ;       odrl:constraint <http://example.com/30minEmbargo>;     ].  <http://example.com/30minEmbargo>     a odrl:Constraint ;       odrl:operator odrl:eq ;       odrl:dateTime "P30M"^^xsd:duration .
12:41:02 <Brian_Ulicny> "permission is granted during an event"
12:41:57 <Brian_Ulicny> "point is that I've encountered a situation where there is no property that can be used"
12:42:18 <Brian_Ulicny> "the property is not adequate to address the use case"
12:42:28 <benws> q?
12:42:41 <simonstey> q-
12:42:51 <Brian_Ulicny> benws: "let's take this discussion to mailing list and reconvene next week"
12:42:58 <Brian_Ulicny> "will provide concrete examples"
12:43:11 <simonstey> +q
12:43:47 <simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/45
12:44:00 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "raised an issue on github wrt relations"
12:44:19 <Brian_Ulicny> "does it make sense to have extended relations for permissions?"
12:44:30 <simonstey> https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#extended-relations
12:45:22 <Brian_Ulicny> "spec says that if you and permissions then you have to do all of them.  this is wrong"
12:45:35 <Brian_Ulicny> "you have to do all ANDed duties, not permission"
12:45:41 <Brian_Ulicny> "permissions"
12:45:55 <Brian_Ulicny> "what does it mean to tie permissions with an OR?"
12:46:25 <benws> q?
12:46:37 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "either you have to satisfy this constraint or that constraint"
12:46:39 <Serena> q+
12:46:57 <Brian_Ulicny> "specification is wrong.  Uses 'may not', which is not defined."
12:47:11 <simonstey> q-
12:47:24 <phila> ack s
12:47:48 <Brian_Ulicny> serena: "I agree with simon.  Connectors for duties and constraints, not relations"
12:48:16 <phila> PROPOSED: That the extended relations (AND, OR, XOR) will only apply to Duties and Constraints, not Permissions and Prohibitions
12:48:41 <simonstey> +1
12:48:48 <benws> +1
12:48:48 <Serena> +1
12:49:04 <Brian_Ulicny> not sure
12:49:50 <James> +1
12:50:24 <phila> present+ James
12:50:30 <phila> victor: +1
12:50:35 <phila> RESOLUTION: That the extended relations (AND, OR, XOR) will only apply to Duties and Constraints, not Permissions and Prohibitions
12:50:36 <smyles> +1
12:50:41 <michaelS> +1
12:50:54 <Brian_Ulicny> benws: "will quickly run through open actions"
12:51:01 <benws> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open
12:51:28 <phila> action-25?
12:51:28 <trackbot> action-25 -- Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel to Provide an example of how good relations vocab support 'unit-of-count' -- due 2016-09-29 -- OPEN
12:51:28 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/25
12:51:34 <Brian_Ulicny> "victor, you were going to provide an example of unit-of-count"
12:51:42 <phila> action-30?
12:51:42 <trackbot> action-30 -- Stuart Myles to Can we only have a json-ld serialisation? will it impact righstml? -- due 2016-09-30 -- OPEN
12:51:42 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/30
12:52:52 <Brian_Ulicny> "simon, yours will always be open"
12:52:56 <Brian_Ulicny> "issues raised"
12:53:03 <phila> q+
12:53:11 <phila> ack me
12:53:44 <Brian_Ulicny> phila: "do we need to follow issues in github as well?"
12:54:02 <Brian_Ulicny> "we just need to make sure that we track ALL the issues"
12:54:18 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "is there integration with IRC and the github tracker?"
12:54:25 <Brian_Ulicny> phila: "No"
12:54:29 <phila> -> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues GitHub Tracker
12:54:45 <Brian_Ulicny> 15 issues on github tracker currently
12:55:00 <Brian_Ulicny> phila: "Most raised by renator"
12:55:06 <Brian_Ulicny> *renato
12:55:53 <simonstey> issue-1
12:55:53 <trackbot> issue-1 -- The number of times we need to refer to the target -- closed
12:55:53 <trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/issues/1
12:56:05 <Brian_Ulicny> simon: "easier to look up issues in IRC via trackbot"
12:56:07 <victor> I can solve mine inmediatly Action 25. the example that is requested can be seen in slide 18 of http://tutorials.oeg-upm.net/rightslinkeddata/session4b.pdf
12:56:57 <phila> Topic: AOB
12:57:05 <Brian_Ulicny> benws: "can bring this up next week."
12:57:40 <Brian_Ulicny> victor: "next f2f: when, where, who (ben is necessary)"
12:57:43 <phila> phila: I think Renato might well be there
12:58:03 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:58:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-minutes.html phila
12:58:04 <Brian_Ulicny> phila: "suggest a date, we'll take it from there"
12:58:18 <Serena> Serena has left #poe
12:58:36 <phila> s/phila/benws/
12:58:41 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:58:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-minutes.html phila
15:22:32 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe
16:38:57 <benws> benws has joined #poe
16:42:45 <benws2> benws2 has joined #poe
18:19:40 <benws> benws has joined #poe
18:23:26 <benws2> benws2 has joined #poe