See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: simonstey
<scribe> chair: benws
<Brian_Ulicny> Can someone post the Webex link
<scribe> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161121
<renato> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m26bd8696de908ff6bd04482e85fa34e7
<renato> OR ;-)
benws1119: approval of last week's minutes
<renato> UCR Editors Draft: http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Constraints
simonstey: missing links between
ucs & reqs; played around with Ivan's script and got it to
work
... will continue working on that
michaelS: Victor and I started to
work on a wiki page
... victor is the "green guy"
... there is a link to a second page where i've rewritten some
definitions
michaelS: leftoperand & rightoperand, where the leftoperand is the more "flexible" representation
second page: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Constraints_in_the_Information_Model
renato: what do you mean with "defining how a value must be retrieved"?
michaelS: what has to be measured
in this constraint
... it's about having a very clear definition of what the
constraint is about
... less room for interpretation
smyles: I have a similar point
-> for each constraint operator, where do you get the values
from?
... and we have to distinguish between duty constraints and
"normal" constraints
victor: either you leave this
undefined
... you also want do define some additional information for
each constraint, right?
... e.g. domain/range of properties?
michaelS: maybe.. there are some pros & cons for that
<victor> (I am referring to my fourth comment at the bottom of https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Constraints)
michaelS: I think this could be
solved in two ways.. either as ben said
... defining it in the free text
... or using "anonymized" properties
... e.g. "value is found at property1"
renato: we should define
domain/range, as long its valid for all uses of that
constraint
... do you want to split "absolutposition" into multiple
constraints michael?
michaelS: yes
... maybe even more!
renato: also regarding
"language"
... what do you mean with before and after?
michaelS: when the constraint
should be evaluated
... either before an action is performed or afterwards
<victor> (are the new ones truly supported by Use Cases?)
renato: so you are proposing to
deprecate some of those constraints an only use the new
ones?
... the other option would be to clean up the definition of
some of those things
michaelS: well.. depends on the users of such constraints
smyles: could we try (right now)
to define one of those constraints more precisely
... i.e. taking one of those we think isn't defined precise
enough
... and following all way through
michaelS: lets try
"spatial"
... "A code representing a geospatial area." -> what does
that mean?
... it should refer to the area respective action is exercised
in
... but how to measure that?
... kind of difficult, so lets break it down into more simpler
terms
... e.g. name of country or alike
... so I came up with "namedGeoArea"
smyles: this is actually a very
common type of restriction
... 1) how the AP currently deals with geographic
restrictions
... some of the restrictions are country based, but most are
city and/or region based
... "my competitor across town cannot use this"
... we deal with those restrictions, by assigning a geography
to each recipient
... we make a decision upfront
... what I did was, to built a geography hierarchy
... so you would have to say "in paris -> france ->
europe.."
renato: could you use a getty thes. for that hierarchy?
smyles: AP has both an editorial & business hierarchy
renato: my question is: how far
do we want to go wrt. supporting implementations?
... using conditions as some form of machine readable
representation
... or having all of them also automatically verifyable
... for some constraints we can't know how the community will
interpret them
<victor> +1
benws1119: there are two streams:
1) we have to increase precision thus include more and more
constraints
... 2) do the opposite and leave most of those constraints for
profiles
... some of those are very domain specific
Brian_Ulicny: we use geonames a lot in our group
<victor> (we also use and love geonames
<victor> )
Brian_Ulicny: we also need to be able to say "this is constrained to western europe and by western europe we mean the union of "...""
smyles: one way forward is to
say: here is the def. of what we mean with geospatial
... and those are the different choices of implementing
this
<victor> useful discussion? Yes but... which are the conclusions?
renato: [explaining his email
regarding constraints on constraints]
... will send an update of the example around
benws1119: we have a virtual f2f coming up soon
renato: depends on our
deliverables
... the week after the VF2F we should publish the 3 documents
we have for now
benws1119: what about progress on constraints?
<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues
renato: yes, we should focus on open issues
<victor> +1
benws1119: maybe we should agree on a set of decisions we want to make at the meeting
renato: probably constraints on constraints/assets/...
<smyles> also constraints on duties
renato: if we aim to get constraints fixed/updated
yes
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/87755/F2F-2-prefs/results
[trying to interpret the results]
renato: seems like there's a slight tendency towards europe
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148 of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: simonstey Inferring ScribeNick: simonstey Present: Brian_Ulicny benws renato scribe smyles victor Regrets: Phil Sabrina Ivan Caroline Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161121 Found Date: 21 Nov 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/21-poe-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]