See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: simonstey
renato: approval of last week's minutes
https://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-minutes.html
<Brian_Ulicny> +1
<Serena> +1
scribe: no objections; minutes accepted
<renato> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15nbqGY20IIGbTQOzKxzw59TLzwfPpRZu-1KKA97phKg/edit
renato: we got some UC from the book industry study group
<phila> Happy, sure
renato: we'll now go through them one by one
<Serena> sure
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: some req. read
more like principles rather than actual requirements
... not sure what library-to-library licensing actually
entails
+q
<phila> simonstey: Second what Phil said, this library to library case isn't special from our POV. You can define an agreement, one library is the assignee, one is the assigner etc.
phila: one response is "this is already covered" and I think so too
22.1 -> already covered
+q
<Brian_Ulicny> +q
<phila> simonstey: This could be a super valuable asset that you physically display but only for the case of someone to look at t, not to lend it out etc.
Brian_Ulicny: not sure what "display for discovery" actually means
renato: maybe we should ask them for some clarification
22.2 -> ask BISG for clarification
<phila> simonstey: This is related too the grouping of assets?
<phila> ... The chapters, graphs etc.
renato: later on we have req. referring to breaking down the asset into individual parts
22.3 -> already satisfied (i.e. defning perm/.. for individual subcomponents and group them together in a policy)
22.4 -> already satisfied
phila: that's potentially a
bigger problem than just applying perm/prohibitions
... this I believe is a hot topic in digital publishing
... if you have an ID for your document, how are you
identifying individual parts?
ivan: I don't think this WG
should try to invent something
... we should take whatever's already out there
... I think the issue here is whether this can be used for
ODRL
... the gettyimage is a difficult example in that context
... if I have a resource, can I assign perm/proh to that
resource
... and subsequently to parts of that resource too?
renato: well.. partially
... we want to have something that allows us to define "parts"
of an asset
ivan: I have URI1 describing
certain rights, URI2 describing some other rights
... can I say -> for everything that's not covered by URI1,
look for it at URI2
renato: no, I don't think so
phila: it is not easy to define
such "default behavior/set of metadata", we did that in
POWDER
... I think we are getting well beyond what this WG should
do
... I'm not proposing POWDER as a solution, just wanted to
mention it
<Brian_Ulicny> +q
+q
ivan: from an ODRL point of view, structure isn't that important
Brian_Ulicny: I think there are 2
issues here
... 1) whether rights of parts are communicated back to the
whole
<phila> simonstey: Regarding this issue of parts of a whole, applying things to the whole or parts... this is put here in the domain of libraries, but we also have it coming from TR. They boil down to this use case.
ivan: I want to be a bit cautious
about saying "just put a URI on it"
... I would not dismiss the fact that someones uses a blank
node for describing a resource
<phila> POWDER eg
phila: I keep talking about
powder
... it's an example of a policy
... line 7 -> beginning of an audit list (dr = description
resource)
... 1) IRI set 2) set of descriptors
[phila explains example POWDER policy]
<ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-respec.html
ivan: that's the document I was
referring to
... section 3 the selectors
<ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-respec.html#TextQuoteSelector_def
ivan: an example expressed in
JSON defining sections of a document
... this (or a combination for that matter) is able to define
specific parts of a document
... what the rec. behind that doesn't have is URIs for it
ivan: here you do get URIs (ugly
ones though)
... I don't know whether it's possible for ODRL to define
perms/prohi. for something that's defined like that
renato: you are talking about
example 6 of the first link you've posted?
... I recall that we've a req. that requires to be able to
define constraints on assets too
<ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-respec.html#SelectorRefinement_def
ivan: yes, it could be seen as constraint on a URI
[renato & ivan talking about possible realization in ODRL]
renato: we'll ask them to give us some clarification
23.6/7 -> implementation specific
23.1-5 -> ask BISG for clarification
ivan: 24.3 refers to the fact
that certain publishers may provide free "samples" of their
books
... but this would then actually result in two different
assets
+q
<phila> simonstey: I don't think we can enumerate all the possible purposes
renato: long long time ago we had something like "subscription"
<Serena> I agree with Simon
<phila> simonstey: I think the fact that we can add time to permissions etc. means ODRL covers these use cases
25.1 -> supported using grantUse/nextPolicy
24.1-24.5 -> covered, need some investigation though
<phila> phila: Will circulate new time of 12:30 UTC which, in UTC terms, is half an hour later than the current meeting time, but will be half an hour earlier on northern hemisphere calendars after DST ends