12:14:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:14:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/07-poe-irc
12:14:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:14:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:14:04 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
12:14:04 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:14:05 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:14:05 <trackbot> Date: 07 November 2016
12:14:22 <renato> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161107
12:14:32 <renato> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:22:03 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #poe
12:23:27 <simonstey> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161107
12:26:49 <simonstey> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161107
12:26:52 <simonstey> hmm
12:30:12 <renato> agenda?
12:30:55 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
12:31:42 <renato> trackbot, status
12:31:50 <simonstey> Meeting: Agenda for 2016-11-07 https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161107
12:32:00 <benws2> present+
12:32:33 <simonstey> present+
12:32:50 <phila> present+
12:34:03 <ivan> Present+
12:34:33 <Sabrina> Sabrina has joined #poe
12:34:47 <Sabrina> present+ sabrina
12:35:29 <phila> scribe: phila
12:35:32 <phila> scribeNick:ph
12:35:40 <phila> scribeNick: phila
12:36:00 <phila> Topic: Last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/10/31-poe-minutes.html
12:36:04 <michaelS> present+ michaelS
12:36:11 <phila> benws2: NOTUC?
12:36:28 <phila> RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes
12:36:31 <phila> chair: Ben
12:36:32 <simonstey> +q
12:36:43 <phila> Topic: UCR Note
12:37:08 <phila> simonstey: I've started to update the GH version of the doc. I added the remainingn use cases up to no.36, including the BSIG ones
12:37:22 <phila> ... I looked over our requirements
12:37:44 <phila> ... Those rejected by the WG, I have made a note accordingly.
12:38:03 <phila> ... We may want to exclude them or remove them? Or cross them out?
12:38:09 <smyles> smyles has joined #poe
12:38:26 <phila> simonstey: There are some that we agreed to but they need guidance
12:38:37 <phila> ... As currently forumlated, they're not reqs.
12:38:49 <smyles> present+
12:38:49 <phila> ... POE RR08, guidance on provenance policies, for example
12:39:05 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/#POE.R.R.08
12:39:12 <phila> simonstey: IMO, this isn't a req for ODRL, but is a req for the WG deliverables
12:39:28 <phila> ... So do we keep them there?
12:39:43 <phila> benws2: It seems that we have 2 Qs
12:40:15 <phila> benws2: Should we keep in the UCR, UCs that we're not going to address, and 2. Do we keep in there reqs that we'll address in documentation
12:40:41 <phila> simonstey: There are some Reqs that re not formulated as reqs for ODRL
12:41:07 <phila> benws2: My working assumption was that we had previously agreed that we'd keep those UCs on the wiki but remove them from the actual doc.
12:41:16 <benws2> q?
12:41:27 <renato> q+
12:41:37 <phila> q- s
12:41:50 <phila> asck r
12:41:52 <phila> ack r
12:42:32 <phila> renato: From memory... we did state that UCs that we were not going to address still would appear in the UCR but be flagged as being for a future version
12:43:04 <phila> renato: Only reqs that we'll address will be in there, but all UCs are in there.
12:43:14 <simonstey> "Specific requirements that have been de-prioritized or rejected have been left in the document for completeness, but are shown as struck out."
12:43:14 <benws2> q?
12:44:42 <CarolineB> CarolineB has joined #poe
12:44:55 <CarolineB> present+ CarolineB
12:45:08 <phila> ivan: It's OK if we have reqs that we end up not covering, but some sort of doc should exist that says why we won't/didn't address it.
12:45:17 <phila> ... There can be any (genuine) reasons.
12:45:30 <phila> benws2: But would you include the UCs?
12:45:37 <phila> ivan: If they're genuine UCs then, yes.
12:45:49 <phila> ... Maybe in 2 years' time we come back and look at it again.
12:46:04 <phila> benws2: What about UCs that raise Reqs that are already covered?
12:46:30 <phila> benws2: If there's a UC on the wiki that we judge to be covered in ODRL
12:46:40 <phila> benws2: We agreed only to generate Reqs for changes
12:47:17 <benws2> q?
12:47:52 <simonstey> +q
12:47:58 <phila> benws2: ASking in general, am I right not to include UCs that don't generate any new requirements?
12:48:00 <phila> ack s
12:48:01 <michaelS> I recall the same
12:48:02 <phila> q+
12:48:33 <michaelS> q+
12:48:40 <phila> simonstey: I'd say there's no point in having a UC that repeats another one's reqs
12:49:17 <phila> s/I'd say there's no point in having a UC that repeats another one's reqs/I'd say there's value in having a UC that repeats another one's reqs
12:49:34 <phila> simonstey: The UCs tell you what people want to use ODRL for.
12:49:56 <phila> ... We don't want to add something to ODRL that isn't required by anyone
12:50:28 <phila> ack me
12:50:56 <Brian_Ulicny> Brian_Ulicny has joined #poe
12:51:45 <phila> phila: IMO the UCR should refer explicitly to the original ODRL UCs and say thaty we're building on top of that.
12:52:17 <renato> q+
12:52:21 <phila> michaelS: I think the reqs doc shouldn't include what's alreadty covered, but the wiki can.
12:52:49 <phila> benws2: In the UCR, should we have UCs that generate no Reqs because they're already covered??
12:53:04 <benws2> q?
12:53:05 <phila> ... Were OK with UCs that generate Reqs we're not going to cover
12:53:14 <simonstey> ack michaelS
12:53:20 <phila> renato: For example, UC31 on internal rights management
12:53:21 <renato> trackbot, status
12:53:23 <phila> ack r
12:53:45 <phila> renato: We decided last week that it was all implementation specific. So do we remove 31?
12:53:51 <Brian_Ulicny> present+
12:53:53 <phila> benws2: I think there are 3 classes of UC
12:54:02 <phila> ... 1 asking for exsting ODRL functgionality
12:54:18 <phila> ... 2 asking for guidance that we can link to the BP doc, eg using Prov
12:54:33 <phila> ... 3 UCs that do generate new Reqs buyt thaty we're not going to cover
12:54:41 <phila> s/buyt thaty/but that/
12:54:54 <phila> renato: So 31 is an implementation issue.
12:55:16 <phila> benws2: If it wont even make the BP doc then I'm not sure that we shoijuld include it - we have nothing to say about it
12:55:21 <phila> benws2: For the vote...
12:55:41 <simonstey> no
12:55:43 <phila> ... Those UCs that generate no new Reqs, should they be in our UCR document?
12:56:16 <simonstey> +q
12:56:23 <phila> phila: Emphasises desire for link to old UCs
12:56:26 <phila> ack s
12:57:03 <phila> simonstey: My no relates to UCs like the one Renato mentioned which was about implementation issues. I don't think that should be part of the UCR.
12:57:43 <phila> simonstey: Reqs that were gathered years ago, they need to be part of the UC document, at least by reference.
12:57:57 <michaelS> q+
12:58:04 <phila> benws2: That can be in a para t the top. These UCs extend the existing set that drove dev of ODRL
12:58:46 <phila> PROPOSED: That we don't include use cvses in the UCR Doc that generate no requirements and no guidance.
12:58:58 <phila> s/cvses/cases
12:59:09 <simonstey> +1
12:59:14 <phila> PROPOSED: That we don't include use cases in the UCR Doc that generate no new requirements and no guidance.
12:59:28 <ivan> +1
12:59:29 <Sabrina> +1
12:59:30 <CarolineB> +1
12:59:30 <Brian_Ulicny> +1
12:59:30 <michaelS> +1
12:59:32 <benws2> +1
12:59:32 <simonstey> -0.9
12:59:39 <renato> 0.5
12:59:48 <smyles> 0
13:00:17 <phila> RESOLUTION: That we don't include use cases in the UCR Doc that generate no new requirements and no guidance.
13:00:32 <simonstey> old reqs https://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/2.0/v2req.html
13:00:52 <phila> benws2: Are the editors confident enough to make progress towards a version for publication in December?
13:01:09 <phila> simonstey: This Q about reqs, those we've rejected, do we keep them in the doc?
13:01:26 <phila> michaelS: My thinking is that if we don't include the UCs in the UCR, what about using them for a BP doc?
13:01:38 <phila> ... I think some are interesting and attractive for marketing
13:01:43 <simonstey> requirements != use cases
13:01:53 <phila> benws2: I agree. Any UC that generates that kind of thing is good.
13:01:59 <phila> q?
13:02:03 <phila> ack m
13:02:24 <phila> renato: Are we going to close off the UCs?
13:02:43 <phila> benws2: We could, but I don't feel under pressure to do so.
13:02:54 <phila> benws2: Can we change it after we've published?
13:03:09 <benws2> q?
13:03:14 <phila> ivan: You can publish new versions as often as you like. It's a Note
13:03:32 <benws2> Q?
13:03:33 <phila> benws2: So there's no pressure (literally not a euphemism)
13:03:59 <phila> simonstey: You can change FPWDs at any time and they can be different.
13:04:27 <phila> benws2: if were sinking under the pressure of new UCs OK, we could close the list, but we're not.
13:04:40 <phila> renato: The BSIG has got back to us with clarification, We can discuss that next week.
13:04:43 <phila> Topic: The Model
13:05:03 <phila> renato: On Complex Constraints... it's 3 weeks since we spoke about that.
13:05:20 <phila> ... The minutes said we've move the discussion to e-mail. Has there been any new thoughts?
13:05:25 <Sabrina> q+
13:05:53 <simonstey> +q
13:05:54 <phila> benws2: The one that seems most obvious to me is the chaining of constraints but Simon said that's a processing problem.
13:06:03 <phila> ... Can we design those problems out?
13:06:04 <phila> q?
13:06:09 <phila> ack s
13:06:55 <phila> Sabrina: I sent a mail to the list just before the call. I checked with colleagues about how to describe these using DL. I was told it's outside the scope of OWL 2, as they're linear constraints.
13:07:09 <phila> ... But pointed to a W3C Note on OWL2 and Linear Constraints
13:07:25 <Brian_Ulicny> q+
13:07:34 <phila> ... The semantics and decidability is clear and published. There are existing reasoning engines that will handle it. But it's outside OWL2.
13:07:42 <phila> ack Sabrina
13:07:53 <simonstey> q+
13:07:59 <phila> Brian_Ulicny: What is a linear constraint?
13:08:28 <phila> Sabrina: Some sort of dependency between two things Think of a less than statement, need to evaluate both.
13:08:37 <phila> ivan: That Note has never had any continuation.
13:08:48 <phila> q+ to caution against requiring OWL
13:09:22 <phila> ivan: I wouldn't go down that line... trying to put it into the OWL 2 framework. We don't have the expertise
13:09:23 <phila> q-
13:09:33 <phila> q- Brian_Ulicny
13:09:38 <phila> ack s
13:09:46 <renato> q+
13:10:09 <phila> simonstey: Maybe I want to talk about this at the F2F as I'd need more time to ramble about it. Main question... the role of constraints in ODRL.
13:10:36 <phila> ... Do we want them automatically evaluated? Or is it just about making them machine readable?
13:10:45 <smyles> q+
13:10:52 <phila> simonstey: It could just be a variation on plain text.
13:11:03 <phila> ... I could talk about this for hours.
13:11:31 <phila> ... We need to be clear. We could potentially chain constraints for ever.
13:11:34 <phila> ack r
13:12:21 <benws2> q?
13:12:26 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#POE.R.DM.02_Define_target_of_a_constraint
13:12:27 <phila> renato: In an ideal world it would e great if we could design and build such a system but that's more than we can do. I think it's  expression and machine readability that we're aiming for.
13:12:33 <phila> renato: We have another req....
13:12:59 <phila> renato: We can augment the constraint model so that you can specify the target of the constraint.
13:13:16 <phila> ... We can say that the target of the constraint is another constraint.
13:13:37 <benws2> q?
13:13:42 <phila> ack sm
13:14:03 <phila> smyles: In order for us to help people implement machine readable rights, we do need to document the processing model.
13:14:11 <phila> ... We tried to do this in RightsML
13:14:40 <benws2> q?
13:14:44 <phila> ... If we don't document the processing model, then we're just codifying natural language. We could stop there, but it would be useful to go further
13:14:45 <phila> q+
13:15:17 <phila> ack me
13:15:19 <ivan> +1 to Phil
13:15:26 <renato> +10000
13:15:46 <phila> phila: You can have a processing model but that entails independent software to implement it, test suite etc.
13:16:04 <phila> renato: We can have a model where a constraint has another constraint. That's easy in the model.
13:16:30 <phila> ... We could do that soon and then the WG can see what the outcome is.
13:16:41 <phila> Topic: Extended Relations
13:17:04 <phila> renato: qI wasn't clear on the state of req DM10. Are we waiting for more explicit use cases?
13:17:11 <phila> benws2: For XOR, I can generate loads of use cases.
13:17:24 <phila> renato: Can you send some in
13:17:25 <phila> benws2: Yes
13:17:43 <phila> action: benws2 to submit use cases about extended relations
13:17:43 <trackbot> Error finding 'benws2'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/users>.
13:17:49 <phila> action: benws to submit use cases about extended relations
13:17:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-36 - Submit use cases about extended relations [on Benedict Whittam Smith - due 2016-11-14].
13:18:19 <phila> Topic: Vocabulary
13:18:43 <phila> renato: Simon raised the issue about removing terms that came from a long time ago.
13:18:53 <phila> ... They may not make a lot of sense today.
13:19:05 <phila> ... We had a discussion at TPAC about normative and non-normative terms
13:19:12 <phila> ... Normative means implementations
13:19:23 <simonstey> victor raised that issue a year ago too -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-odrl/2015Apr/0024.html
13:19:28 <phila> ... The question we face is... do we solve those together
13:19:29 <michaelS> q+
13:19:47 <phila> renato: We can say we think these terms are normative, non-normative, at risk etc.
13:19:52 <phila> ack m
13:20:07 <phila> michaelS: What makes a term normative? What is the distinction.
13:20:23 <simonstey> +q
13:20:36 <phila> renato: If you have a section in a spec that is normative, you need multiple implementaions
13:20:39 <phila> ack s
13:20:55 <phila> simonstey: I put a link in - Victor raised this a long time ago.
13:21:14 <phila> ... The core issue of this issue is why certain terms are in ODRL.
13:21:18 <renato> "I love ODRL and the ODRL core model" - thanks Victor ;-)
13:21:54 <phila> simonstey: Why can't we have all those terms? Because there are too many.
13:22:25 <phila> simonstey: We can have the general concept of an Action, in the core, and then people can extend with what they want like 'accept tracking' etc.
13:22:40 <benws2> q?
13:22:40 <phila> simonstey: Not best to have them in the core
13:23:05 <phila> benws2: We have to go through a process of splitting terms into normative and non-normative
13:23:15 <phila> ... What were you suggesting as a process?
13:23:29 <phila> renato: Other people need to look at the terms rather than me as I'm too martied to it.
13:23:42 <phila> ... Especially the names for constraints.
13:24:00 <phila> ... Check them off as at risk terms, like 'inStore' might be too outdated
13:24:02 <phila> q+
13:24:28 <phila> ack me
13:25:16 <simonstey> +1 to phila's proposal
13:25:36 <simonstey> +1
13:25:39 <simonstey> +q
13:25:47 <phila> phila: Enumerations = obscelence
13:25:59 <smyles> obsolescence
13:26:03 <phila> simonstey: That's my point (what Phil said)
13:26:55 <phila> simonstey: As actions are used in ODRL, even if there are 20 ways to say print, there is no problem with having new ones. You don't gain by having them normative.
13:27:10 <phila> s/obscelence/obsolescence/
13:27:18 <benws2> q?
13:27:42 <phila> renato: Why don't we say that all the terms from the info model are normative and the rest, not normative?
13:28:07 <phila> simonstey: Some terms are there nbevcause some time ago the right person asked the right person.
13:28:33 <phila> q+ to talk about the CG
13:28:37 <phila> ack s
13:28:46 <michaelS> q+
13:28:57 <phila> simonstey: Talks about managing narrower and broader terms
13:29:03 <phila> ack me
13:29:03 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about the CG
13:29:25 <phila> ack michaelS
13:29:41 <ivan> q+
13:29:43 <phila> michaelS: From IPTC experience, interop is a problem if you open up fully.
13:29:59 <phila> benws2: But isn't that the role of the news industry to provide the terms.
13:30:16 <simonstey> +1
13:30:18 <simonstey> +q
13:30:21 <phila> michaelS: Sure we can do that for RightsML, but if a news term should be used for a text book? They have different action defn.
13:30:27 <phila> ack i
13:30:39 <phila> ivan: The annotation WG had a similar issue for what we called Motiviations
13:30:40 <ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/vocab/wd/#extending-motivations
13:31:04 <phila> ... We added into the doc, a non-normative guideline on extending. You should do it this way etc.
13:31:08 <benws2> q?
13:31:16 <phila> ... We defined some of the top level ones and then how to add your own.
13:31:17 <phila> ack s
13:31:27 <phila> simonstey: That's what I imagined too.
13:31:58 <phila> ... To respond to Michael - things not being in line, if we have the concept of a profile, you can't stop people defining their own profile.
13:32:05 <phila> ... People will do what they will do.
13:32:13 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:32:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/07-poe-minutes.html phila
13:32:23 <phila> Topic: F2F
13:32:47 <phila> renato: We have got 2 options: Madrid (Victor has offered)
13:32:57 <phila> ... And offer 2 is New York
13:33:08 <phila> ... Monegraph would be happy to host that.
13:33:31 <phila> ... So the question now is what's the decision.
13:33:42 <phila> ... For March
13:34:30 <Sabrina> not necessarily.... NY is great
13:34:48 <victor> victor has joined #poe
13:34:53 <victor> present+ victor
13:35:08 <phila> action: phila to set up WBS to help decide F2F venue
13:35:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - Set up wbs to help decide f2f venue [on Phil Archer - due 2016-11-14].
13:35:39 <victor> (oh! I am afraid I arrived in the last minute...)
13:35:47 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:35:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/07-poe-minutes.html phila
13:35:52 <victor> (I got confused with the timezones again)
14:47:58 <benws> benws has joined #poe
14:52:05 <benws2> benws2 has joined #poe
15:33:25 <ivan> ivan has joined #poe
16:01:39 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe
16:20:05 <benws> benws has joined #poe
16:23:52 <benws2> benws2 has joined #poe
17:20:14 <benws> benws has joined #poe
17:49:17 <benws2> benws2 has joined #poe
17:52:50 <benws3> benws3 has joined #poe
17:53:55 <ivan> ivan has joined #poe