Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

<phila> scribe; Sabrina

<phila> scribeNick: sabrina

<renato> Last meeting minutes

1st item is to approve last weeks minutes

<phila> scribe: Sabrina

Last week's minutes

<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/11/21-poe-minutes.html

approved

renato: 1st item constraints

Constraints

renato: 2nd item discuss the agenda for next weeks virtual f2f

<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Constraints

renato: Any update from Michael on the definitions?

michaelS: added a new column which includes information on what should be deprecated

renato: Any comments from others?

phila: benws Asked for clarification on the constraints wiki document
... Asks for clarification on the "Proposal regarding the Constraint class: ...." text

michaelS: The proposal is to extend the operand class means we need to be clear what goes in the left and right operands

renato: Just so we are clear we will be adding additional constraints to the vocabulary and replacing some... The issue is that we don't want to remove IRIs that are used... As an alternative we could change the label

<renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-dateTime

renato: The label is a human readable string

michaelS: The label is not included in the Wiki label just the term and the definition

renato: For the ones that you propose to update, suggest you check can this be done with the label instead of coming up with new IRIs

benws: If you change the meaning then perhaps you need a new URI?

renato: We are not changing the meaning

michaelS: If we create a new definition we might have to create a new URI !

<simonstey> +q

benws: It depends on whether we are clarifying the meaning or changing the meaning

michaelS: Some of them are very broad so we are in fact changing the meaning

phila: Do you have evidence that some of them are very braod?
... Concerned because in his opinion DateTime is very well defined....
... If you change the definition mint a new URI, Dan Brickleys approach is to see how it is used...

simonstey: Regarding the URI i guess we will have a new URI for POE anyways?

renato: We are currently using ODRL 2, but we need to decide if we use new URIs or not

<renato> Current implementation survey:

<renato> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dVAV6-IJkzlCCoF_ec-ywwUPVmtYuV89tk5ikqY-soQ/edit

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to caution on namespaces

<Sabrina_> Sorry I lost connectivity

<simonstey> +q

<simonstey> sck michaelS

<Sabrina_> renato: Example of subclass would be absolute position and absolute temporal position

<Sabrina_> renato: As per what Phil said we need to be cautious about changing the namespaces and terms because the task of getting it through the standardisation process will be harder

<Sabrina_> simonstey: skos:broader can be used to create such a hierarchy

<michaelS> http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/

<renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/

<Sabrina_> Brian_Ulicny: Questions about the Github vocab doc...

<Sabrina_> renato: Make sure you are looking at the current editors draft

<Sabrina_> renato: Can we keep the URIs and update the labels or create subclasses, which means we only add URIs for new terms

<Sabrina_> michaelS: Ya sure I can go through the list....

<Sabrina_> phila: Looking at the 2 editors drafts and the diagrams are different... and I also noticed on the vocab that there is a property and class with the same name just one upper and lower case

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to compare the diagrams in our Ed drafts and capital letters

<Sabrina_> renato: I have already gone through, perhaps I missed this one... I will update it.

<Sabrina_> renato: The diagram is a work in progress

<renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/

<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues

<Sabrina_> renato: Has been working on the Information model document with Serena and would like to release it, however there are still some open items

<Sabrina_> renato: are you ok with the proposed approach for constraints on constraints?

<Sabrina_> phila: Didn't Simon say that this proposal does not work?

<Sabrina_> simonstey: I said it is horrible, there are lots of issues such as loops and recursion that need to be taken care of.

<Sabrina_> renato: Propose to update the editors draft with the current proposal and go from there

<Sabrina_> benws: I would find it useful if Simon could provide an example of looping

<Sabrina_> simonstey: The problem is that our model allows it.... Pointing to constraints from constraints... Even if it doesn't make sense we have to specify what would happen in the case of a loop.

<Sabrina_> simonstey: If you allow the functionality we have to provide guidance

<Sabrina_> phila: We cannot prevent stupidity....You could however put some guidance into the document.

<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161205

<Sabrina_> renato: I will try to document and release to the group so we can have a long discussion next week in the virtual F2F

Agenda for virtual F2F

<Sabrina_> ODRL Information Model, ODRL Vocabulary and Expression, Use Cases and Requirements, ODRL Notes

<Sabrina_> renato: We still have a number of open issues.... We will not be able to get through all of them next week. We should go through the github issues and pick out the ones that we want to discuss...

<Sabrina_> renato: What needs to be done on the Use Cases and Requirements

<Sabrina_> simonstey: Aim towards a stable version for next week....

<Sabrina_> simonstey: We need to make a decision on the constraints 1st

<Sabrina_> renato: Wait until the model and vocab are more robust

<Sabrina_> renato: The next one is the best practices note (Ben, Paul and Viktor are the editors)

<Sabrina_> benws: It might be useful if Viktor and I come up with some examples that we can discuss on the call next week

<Sabrina_> renato: Feel free to put whatever you like into the document for discussion next week

<Sabrina_> renato: Anything else that you want to discuss

<Sabrina_> renato: In terms of the process regarding the release of the documents can you provide some guidance

<Sabrina_> phila: You need to vote on the documents (i.e. are you happy for the document to go out as a snapshot)

<Sabrina_> phila: Due to Christmas moratorium - they need to go out by Thurs the 15th

<Sabrina_> There is no point rushing it through.... It might make more sense to wait until the new year

<Sabrina_> It is good that you are already implementing and proving that it works in practice

<Sabrina_> benws: Personally I won't have much time to work on the documents before Christmas

<Sabrina_> renato: We won't rush getting the documents out, however we should aim to get clarity on the github issues so that the editors can go away and do the work

<Sabrina_> renato: Another thing is the horizontal reviews. When do they need to be done.

<Sabrina_> phila: The January release will not be complete but should be mature enough for the horizontal review

<Sabrina_> renato: Any other comments on the agenda for next week?

<Sabrina_> No comments...

<Sabrina_> renato: Look at the github issues with a view to closing them off, feel free to comment and contribute

<renato> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/87755/F2F-2-prefs/results

<Sabrina_> phila: Webex for Monday will be different! Please check the wiki. We will start at 10am GMT.

<Sabrina_> renato: Actual face to face NY was unsuccessful :(

<simonstey> +1

<Sabrina_> renato: Maybe we should have it in Vienna as we have 3 active members in Vienna

<phila> I'm easy either way

<michaelS> +1

<Sabrina_> Renato to speak with Viktor.... Need to think of dates in March...

<Sabrina_> Sabrina to revert with dates to Renato

<Sabrina_> AOB?

<Sabrina_> Nope....

<Sabrina_> Thanks for a productive meeting