09:48:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
09:48:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-irc
09:48:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
09:48:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
09:48:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
09:48:07 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
09:48:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
09:48:08 <trackbot> Date: 05 December 2016
09:48:28 <phila> s/Teleconference/Virtual F2F/
09:49:00 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161205
09:49:10 <phila> chair: Renato, Ben
09:49:22 <phila> phila has changed the topic to: Agenda for today's virtual F2F is at https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161205
09:52:46 <Serena> Serena has joined #poe
09:56:20 <renato> renato has joined #poe
09:58:26 <phila> present+ phila, renato, Serena, simonstey, Michael
09:58:38 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:58:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes.html phila
09:59:03 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
09:59:06 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:59:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes.html phila
10:00:06 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
10:01:04 <ivan> present+
10:01:50 <michaelS> present+
10:01:53 <victor> victor has joined #poe
10:02:12 <victor> Hi!
10:02:56 <victor> are we starting now or in 30 mins?
10:03:12 <phila> s/ Hi!//
10:03:20 <phila> s/are we starting now or in 30 mins?//
10:03:32 <phila> scribeNick: phila
10:03:34 <benws111110> present+
10:03:39 <phila> Topic: Scribe duties
10:03:46 <phila> phila: Will start
10:04:00 <victor> present+
10:04:07 <phila> Serena: Second slot
10:04:15 <phila> michaelS: Later, after constraints
10:04:16 <simonstey> simon: I'll do the 3rd one
10:04:32 <michaelS> I'll do the 4th
10:04:56 <benws> present+
10:05:35 <phila> renato: I'd like to go through approved req issues (green ones) first
10:05:43 <phila> ... The go through editorial ones after that
10:05:51 <phila> renato: Going from GH issues
10:06:22 <renato> try this: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=me949e9479628ccd68d29fec3cc71c0da
10:07:49 <phila> Topic: Last meeting minutes
10:07:59 <michaelS> +1
10:08:04 <phila> benws: Any objection to https://www.w3.org/2016/11/28-poe-minutes.html?
10:08:08 <Serena> +1
10:08:24 <phila> RESOLUTION: Minjutes of 28 Nov approved
10:08:32 <phila> Topic: Information model
10:08:42 <Sabrina> Sabrina has joined #poe
10:08:42 <phila> benws: See https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues
10:08:50 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/milestone/1
10:08:54 <Sabrina> present+ sabrina
10:08:58 <phila> s/Minjutes/Minutes
10:09:02 <CarolineB> CarolineB has joined #poe
10:09:13 <phila> -> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/62 Issue 62
10:09:27 <phila> ... See also https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/59
10:09:29 <phila> ... 58
10:09:38 <phila> ... 56
10:09:54 <phila> ... 60
10:10:07 <michaelS> please add 81
10:10:22 <phila> renato: We've seen examples on the list and we've discussed this a lot in the telcos. Need to come to a consensus around constraints on constraints
10:10:40 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/62
10:10:50 <phila> renato: There are various comments on that
10:10:55 <phila> ... including some from michaelS
10:11:07 <phila> ... Questioning whether we need constraints on constraints
10:11:32 <phila> michaelS: From my reading -= what exactly is a constrainty on a constraint?
10:11:51 <phila> .. In some cases it's combining constraints. But I think it's altready defined that multiple constraints are ANDed
10:12:08 <phila> ... so what is a constraint on a constraint?
10:12:47 <phila> renato: The idea is that a c on a c, they still both apply to the action
10:12:55 <phila> ... But the 2nd constrraint applies to the first
10:13:20 <phila> ... Classic example was the 30 mins after a football match image
10:13:31 <phila> ... So action is to distribute the photo
10:14:01 <phila> benws: It's a technique. It's where there is more than one right operand to check
10:14:09 <phila> ... Constraints allow us to do that
10:14:19 <phila> renato: That's a fair description
10:14:23 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
10:14:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes.html phila
10:14:51 <phila> renato: So a ConC helps to resolve issue 60
10:15:25 <phila> ... If we had the ability to say what the actual subject of the constraint is explicitly, then we can say that a C is constyraining another C.
10:15:35 <phila> ... Issue 60 then helps us solve issue 62
10:16:11 <benws> q?
10:16:15 <phila> ... The solution is, in the model, we have another attribute of subject. That allows us to explicitly say that the constraint is on the action, or it can be on another constraint
10:16:33 <phila> benws: Given that a constraint has a name, can't we... [breaking up]
10:17:10 <simonstey> +q
10:17:22 <phila> benws: ... it has a URI, so we can address it ... can't we use odrl:constraint to attach the constraint in the same was we do something else
10:17:39 <phila> simonstey: If we start to attach ConC, what are the intended semantics?
10:18:00 <michaelS> q+
10:18:11 <phila> ... e.g. permission, a C might give a period of time. If attach an additional C, what does that mean>? Can i attach any kind of C to any other kind?
10:18:16 <benws> q?
10:18:19 <phila> ... What if there is a large chain?
10:18:27 <benws> ack simon
10:18:50 <phila> q+ to womnder aloud if we ever need more than 2. If not, can we think of sub constraints
10:18:55 <victor> q+
10:19:00 <phila> simonstey: What does an arbitrary set mean?
10:19:02 <phila> ack m
10:19:13 <phila> michaelS: My question is in a similar direction.
10:19:40 <phila> ... IPTC has RightsML use cases that incluide combined constraints. Like image can be used everywhere except UK but only for a limited time
10:19:49 <phila> ... But we do that already
10:19:54 <simonstey> +q
10:20:03 <phila> ... I don't see a need to say that the temporal constraint is a C on the spatial one
10:20:16 <phila> benws: In that example, you're correct. But an embargo can't
10:20:21 <michaelS> http://dev.iptc.org/RightsML-Combined-Example-geographic-and-time-period
10:20:43 <simonstey> -q
10:20:46 <phila> ... Each right operand can be checked separately, but for an embargo, you need to know both end of the event and the hour after
10:21:21 <phila> ... An eg I've put in the constraint renaming paper. I've put an example to use this left operand resource, which identifies the event. And the C defines a period after the event
10:21:38 <phila> benws: And that's all in a single constraint. So you have 2 right operands in a single constraint?
10:21:50 <phila> michaelS: No, I added a resource to the left operand
10:22:03 <phila> ... So the end event is the left operand
10:22:18 <phila> ... and the right operand is the period afterwhich the action can be performed
10:22:27 <phila> benws: OK, that might work for an embargo
10:22:33 <phila> ... But there are other more complex ones
10:22:51 <benws> Q?
10:22:53 <phila> michaelS: We wanted the flexibility of the free text
10:22:59 <phila> asck me
10:23:05 <phila> ack me
10:23:05 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to womnder aloud if we ever need more than 2. If not, can we think of sub constraints
10:23:10 <michaelS> q
10:23:56 <benws> q?
10:24:16 <phila> victor: Is the name ConC a problem? How about extended info on constraints? Or is it more than that?
10:24:28 <benws> q?
10:24:33 <phila> simonstey: I think it's way more than that.
10:24:39 <benws> ack victor
10:25:00 <phila> ... Even this sub constraint, what does that mean? It means different things. e.g. for a pay amount of a daytime constraint
10:25:26 <phila> simonstey: Inheritance comes in. Are things overwritten or partially overwritten?
10:25:42 <phila> ... But I think it would help to not allow an arbitrary collection.
10:25:50 <phila> ... Extending the left operand might work.
10:26:00 <phila> ... It's those extended relations that might hold the key.
10:26:08 <phila> ... Some ORing, maybe
10:26:33 <phila> simonstey: Another option might be to constraint a whole package
10:26:45 <phila> victor: AIUI, this idea of ConC operates differentely in different examples
10:27:05 <phila> ... The only common point that we have is that it provides extra info and a simple constraint can't be defined
10:27:19 <phila> ... I agree that a clear model is more important than a clear name.
10:27:39 <phila> simonstey: It's important to state that the time period only begins when X happens
10:27:57 <phila> simonstey: There are situations where you don't want them both checked at the same time or sequentially.
10:28:10 <benws> q?
10:28:33 <phila> renato: From this conversation - do we have enbough info that we can make a sensible decision?
10:28:51 <phila> ... It sounds as if there are odd cases where it works but the general is more problematic
10:28:53 <phila> q+
10:29:07 <simonstey> q+
10:29:12 <phila> renato: If we can't come up with a good solution maybe we shouldn't keep trying
10:29:27 <simonstey> q-
10:30:05 <phila> ack me
10:30:12 <phila> benws: We're doing it with a payment constraint
10:30:25 <phila> ... The additional unit, GBP, USD
10:30:42 <phila> ... If we add in the unit of count, we're sneaking in an additional predicate.
10:31:13 <phila> ... We are creating a a special case. You sometimes need an extra predicate
10:31:20 <phila> victor: Do you have an example online?
10:31:22 <michaelS> q+
10:31:40 <phila> benws: If you have a payment amount, you need to include the currency
10:31:45 <simonstey> q+
10:31:58 <renato> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2016Nov/0065.html
10:31:58 <phila> ... If it's about location, you'll need to include IP address or whatever
10:32:14 <phila> renato: That example has a pay amount example with a unit and a unit of count
10:32:33 <phila> q+ To remark that's still only 2 constraints
10:32:35 <phila> ack m
10:32:37 <benws> q?
10:33:17 <phila> michaelS: I think we should make a distinction... the right operand is an entity and that could have properties.
10:33:45 <phila> ... If you want to express a financial amount, that includes a currency, it's not a constraint, just a property of the right operand
10:34:13 <phila> ... Issue 58... we talked about what a unit of count actually is. I feel it's another constraint, not a ConC
10:34:38 <phila> benws: But if you define the amount that needs to be paid, in order to define the unit, how do you connect that to the pay mount comnstraiont?
10:34:55 <phila> michaelS: The unit is part of this constraint.
10:35:01 <phila> simonstey: I agree with Ben on that issue.
10:35:20 <phila> ... There are situations where ConC makes sense, e.g. pay 100, then say the currency.
10:35:28 <phila> ... So that's a constraint on a constraint.
10:35:40 <phila> ... This combination makes sense, and we've sneaked this into the model
10:36:03 <phila> ... But there other situations where this unit thing doesn't make sense.
10:36:28 <phila> ... it's saying you can't pay $100, you have to pay €100
10:36:28 <benws> q?
10:36:57 <phila> michaelS: I can't agree with that. If you want to define an amount for payment... this colour value has no reason.
10:37:11 <phila> ... If you have to say how much money, you need to say what currency
10:37:40 <phila> simonstey: If I don't care about the unit, it's not wrong...
10:38:11 <phila> benws: It's even more obvious in unit of count. Is it for an access ID, a physical ID etc.
10:38:25 <phila> ... Otherwise we don't know what the payment is for.
10:38:41 <phila> michaelS: In my answer to issue 58, I said why is this not a constraint
10:38:57 <phila> benws: Because the subject of the constraint, current model, is the action.
10:39:11 <benws> q?
10:39:11 <phila> michaelS: But these are siblings
10:39:22 <simonstey> ack simonstey
10:39:31 <phila> renato: So in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2016Nov/0065.html
10:39:38 <phila> ... Look at the duty
10:39:50 <phila> ... There's a constraint of a unit of count and a time interval.
10:40:10 <phila> ... So the currency is constrained and there's a time constraint
10:40:56 <phila> michaelS: Unit is a part of the amount
10:41:22 <phila> q+ to talk about https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#LocaleParametersMetadata
10:41:40 <phila> ack me
10:41:40 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to remark that's still only 2 constraints and to talk about https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#LocaleParametersMetadata
10:41:47 <benws> q?
10:42:02 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#LocaleParametersMetadata
10:43:45 <phila> phila: Talks about locale neutral data and only 2 levels of CofC
10:44:30 <phila> benws: On the first implementation, I might think that 2 levels is enough. Then I might find a future more complex version that needs a chain and I'd have to write code to support any number of constraints
10:44:52 <phila> ... I see no reason to limit us to 2. 3 would be rate, 4 very rare, but the world is a big plavce.
10:44:58 <phila> phila: OK
10:45:01 <benws> q?
10:45:09 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
10:45:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes.html phila
10:45:14 <phila> renato: So where are we?
10:45:30 <phila> benws: I'd like to understand Michael's solution for an embargo more
10:45:44 <phila> renato: Did you write some pseudo code for that michaelS?
10:46:00 <phila> michaelS: Regarding this event and period, I have put this in the constraints
10:46:00 <michaelS> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Constraints#Definition_of_the_Left_Operands.2FNames_of_Constraints
10:46:22 <phila> michaelS: That says left operand defines the end of the event
10:46:57 <phila> ... The left operand resource states sthe end of the event. The right operand states the period. After that the action can be (not)performed
10:47:47 <phila> benws: So if we were to look at a pay amount constraint
10:48:00 <phila> ... Would you say that left operand unit: Euro?
10:48:07 <phila> ... Would that be a solution?
10:48:18 <phila> michaelS: We could use it like that. We have our pay amount...
10:48:40 <phila> simonstey: You're saying that you can have those generic left operands and explain in  plain text what those left operands are
10:48:57 <phila> ... So you end up with a a super-large left operand
10:49:46 <phila> simonstey: The machine provides the end of the event, but I have to know that the end of the event is not when this starts.
10:50:07 <phila> michaelS: This left hand operand would give the end of the event as the start. You get the 30 mins from the right
10:50:18 <phila> benws: Can a machine understand this?
10:50:33 <phila> michaelS: We talked about this on 15/11. WE said that most of the processes need to be hand crafted
10:50:34 <Sabrina> this sounds like linear constraints which is outside of OWL
10:50:40 <benws> q?
10:51:07 <phila> michaelS: You can have lots of left operands, and you have to adjust your code
10:51:26 <phila> benws: You might have that, but I'm hoping for profiles that can automate this process.
10:51:39 <phila> michaelS: That's why I proposed to add the left operand so you can see it automated.
10:52:08 <phila> ... SO maybe TR can define that count has to be taken from a TR resource and this resource is the reference for checking against the value of count in the  right operand/.
10:52:36 <renato> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2016Nov/0074.html
10:52:49 <phila> benws: When you say that, it sounds right, but then I see you have to read the text. It seems the language doesn't have the semantics to express something relatively simple.
10:52:59 <phila> renato: I was trying to work out that the left operand 1-9 meant
10:53:11 <phila> ... Is there a URI for getting the current count, for example?
10:53:13 <phila> michaelS: Yes
10:53:46 <phila> michaelS: The free text defines that you have to check a reference against the right operand. To have that machine processable, you can provide the URI that gives the official count.
10:54:25 <phila> michaelS: And Ben you said that free text doesn't make you happy. What I propose allows using an API for retrieving the count value
10:55:05 <phila> renato: Does you event end period, does that contain a URI of the event or the period of time you wait after the event.
10:55:32 <phila> michaelS: The simple solution is that the left operand provides an ID for the event. But that doesn't work as you want the end of the event, not the event itself
10:56:12 <phila> michaelS: But an event organiser might provide a URL that provides the timestamp of the end of the event. Ping thsat until you get a timestamp and then start counting.
10:56:33 <phila> renato: We're getting into a processing model - how a system would communicate
10:56:48 <benws> q?
10:56:57 <phila> ... I'm sending a request to a URI and whether I get a response and what response I get starts to matter.
10:57:09 <phila> benws: It seems we're jumping to the processing model far too early
10:57:35 <phila> renato: So where do we go from here on ConC?
10:57:37 <simonstey> can't we just point to an instance of type https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#time:TemporalEntity
10:57:44 <victor> +1
10:57:50 <phila> renato: Is there agreement that we need one level of ConC?
10:57:51 <Serena> +1
10:57:57 <phila> benws: I think we def need one or more
10:58:02 <Sabrina> +1
10:58:39 <michaelS> q+
10:58:43 <phila> renato: A profile can restrict numbers of constraints, from a model POV, we need to allow the general case
10:59:18 <phila> michaelS: To clarify... which count are we talking about? Are we talking about the levels of constraints, or how many consytraints at the first level?
10:59:31 <phila> renato: In theory, we can have 10 constraints
10:59:55 <phila> ... The Q then is, within any of those Cs, are they further constrained, should we put a limit on how many there could be?
11:00:11 <Serena> *phila, do you want me to take the hand for scribing?*
11:00:39 <Serena> *ok!*
11:00:51 <phila> benws: Let's clarify ...
11:01:09 <phila> ... Whatever solution should be machine processable. Secondly may require more than 1 predicate/.
11:01:45 <phila> PROPOSED: Constraint handling should be machine processable
11:02:10 <phila> renato: Expressable or processable?
11:02:33 <phila> benws: I want the language to be able to express permissions without having to read free text.
11:02:51 <phila> renato: Is 'industry is education' is that machine processable?
11:02:51 <phila> benws: Yes
11:02:57 <ivan> q+
11:03:06 <phila> ack m
11:03:29 <phila> michaelS: The Q is, is this as strict so that all constraints MUST be machine processable, but is it a goal?
11:03:50 <phila> michaelS: I only want to point to the existing constraint that says you need to read the policy
11:03:51 <simonstey> +q
11:03:55 <phila> benws: Include those in scope
11:03:57 <phila> ack i
11:04:24 <phila> ivan: I'm a little bit scare of this... if we do that, then we will have to prove interop. Then we get into a required processing way.
11:04:46 <phila> benws: I don't think we're specifying a means of processing it [Breaking up]
11:04:59 <phila> benws: [missed] in theory processable
11:05:10 <phila> ivan: We need to be careful how we formulate that
11:05:45 <phila> benws: We're not specifying a processing model, at this stage, we're saying at this stage that a machines doesn't need to go off and read free text.
11:06:05 <phila> ivan: In theory I agree with that. But if we have constraints that include time
11:06:12 <phila> ... So we'd need to specify this
11:06:21 <phila> q+ to talk about related current future work
11:06:44 <phila> benws: I think Michael has done a lot on this
11:07:02 <phila> ivan: Isn't it better to say that ODRL should be self contained and not depend on additional prose.
11:07:19 <phila> ... I am worried about the terms processing and processable here. It raises potential flags and interop issues
11:07:27 <benws>  q?
11:07:40 <phila> ack s
11:07:54 <phila> simonstey: The Q is whether you meant verifiable
11:08:05 <phila> ... There are things you can't necessarily check
11:08:12 <ivan> Proposed: ODRL constraints should be self contained and not depend on additional prose.
11:08:29 <michaelS> q+
11:08:33 <phila> simonstey: Something like 'review policy'
11:08:40 <phila> ivan: That'[s why it says SHOULD not MUST
11:08:42 <victor> ivan: some constraints are pure prose, those.
11:08:56 <ivan> s/should/SHOULD
11:09:06 <benws> q?
11:09:09 <phila> ivan: There might be cases where this is not achievable, but the goal is not to depend on additional propose
11:09:16 <phila> ack me
11:09:16 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about related current future work
11:09:19 <victor> s/ivan: some constraints are pure prose, those.//
11:10:07 <benws> q?
11:11:13 <phila> phila: Talked about verifiable claims and OWL Toime
11:11:24 <phila> michaelS: Does ODRL have to express *everything*?
11:11:51 <phila> michaelS: A typical use is to complement something like a 10 page contract
11:12:09 <phila> ... for example, constraints of spatial and temporal use. These are typical in news.
11:12:27 <phila> ... The machine readable data will need to interpret the full text.
11:13:05 <phila> michaelS: There may be constraints in a 10 page contract that are not expressed in the ODRL policy
11:13:35 <phila> ... So I'm not happy about having a strict requirement that everything must be machine readable
11:13:45 <phila> benws: I didn't mean that
11:13:50 <phila> michaelS: That's how I read it.
11:14:13 <phila> benws: It's clear to me that an ODRL policy is an interpretation for a purpose
11:14:31 <phila> s/Toime/Time/
11:14:59 <phila> benws: It should be understood without ref to free text
11:15:14 <phila> victor: Or at least say that for a full interpretation you need to see the full text
11:15:21 <phila> michaelS: We have a duty for that
11:15:45 <phila> benws: There's no sense on my part that ODRL is meant to be a full representation of the contract. That won't happen
11:15:47 <benws> q?
11:15:52 <michaelS> q-
11:16:00 <benws> ack michael
11:16:04 <phila> victor: Can we matrk those constraints that can and can't be digitally evaluated?
11:16:23 <phila> benws: Let's come back to that. And come back to the proposal
11:16:28 <phila> victor: I think it's the same
11:16:39 <phila> ... distinguishing those that are self-contained and not
11:17:12 <phila> benws: I think you're conflating expressability and processability
11:17:40 <phila> Proposed: ODRL constraints SHOULD be self contained and not depend on additional prose.
11:18:24 <phila> Proposed: ODRL constraints SHOULD be self contained and not depend on additional prose, noting that it may be a subset of a larger human readable policy.
11:18:50 <CarolineB> +1
11:18:57 <ivan> +1
11:19:04 <Sabrina> +1
11:19:06 <Serena> +1
11:19:09 <michaelS> 0
11:19:15 <renato> +0.5
11:19:19 <simonstey> +1
11:19:50 <michaelS> What exactly is "additional prose"?
11:20:51 <phila> michaelS: I put my user hat on. If you want to process a constraint, you have to read the left operand. Is that dependent on additional prose?
11:20:52 <phila> benws: No
11:21:02 <phila> ... you have to learn the language
11:21:14 <phila> simonstey: I think michaelS is talking about custiome left operands
11:21:18 <victor> +0.5  (explanation: some constraints should be self-contained and processable, some others can be "additionalTextConstraint". The important thing is to have ANNOTATED the status of each term)
11:21:33 <phila> michaelS: So again for this count value.. it doesn't say from where you get the counts.
11:22:02 <phila> benws: No, it means that the language should be riche enough to tell people where to get the count from
11:22:18 <phila> ... How do we define constraint so that we can include that in the defintion
11:22:36 <phila> michaelS: All info?
11:22:44 <phila> benws: Enough!
11:22:58 <phila> benws: How do we design constraints so that there is enough info
11:23:26 <phila> RESOLUTION: ODRL constraints SHOULD be self contained and not depend on additional prose, noting that it may be a subset of a larger human readable policy.
11:24:04 <phila> PROPOSED: A constraint SHOULD carry enough information to check whether it has been satisfied
11:24:20 <michaelS> +1
11:25:07 <Serena> *I agree with Simon*
11:25:09 <phila> benws: The previous proposal is only about whether the solution relying only on the semantics on ODRL. Now we're saying that constraints should be able to check whether they've been satisfied
11:25:18 <renato> About "this long"
11:25:35 <michaelS> Enough = enabling the processor to match left and right operand
11:26:32 <phila> renato: I suppose we're saying that in a constraint, we need to be able to refer to a source of info to check whether it's been satisfied. So if the count has to be 10, you find out whether it is or not by looking at {} this URL
11:27:12 <phila> simonstey: Maybe then we say that a constraint should provide info for checking that it has been satisfied
11:28:12 <phila> benws: Can you have a constraint like 'read the licence'
11:28:19 <phila> simonstey: That's why it's SHOULD not MUST
11:28:39 <benws>  q?
11:28:59 <michaelS> "enabling to match left and right operand" is enough
11:29:28 <phila>  PROPOSED: A constraint SHOULD carry "enabling to match left and right operand information to check whether it has been satisfied
11:30:10 <phila>  PROPOSED: A constraint SHOULD carry information to enable the left and right operands to be processed to check whether it has been satisfied
11:30:43 <victor> +1
11:31:06 <michaelS> q+
11:31:16 <phila> ack m
11:31:52 <phila> michaelS: I've proposed to use the term matching left and right operand by the rule of the operatr
11:32:43 <phila> michaelS: I agree to the proposal, but I understand the concern about processing.
11:33:05 <simonstey> +0.5
11:34:02 <CarolineB> +1
11:34:05 <Serena> +1
11:34:07 <Sabrina> +1
11:34:07 <michaelS> +1
11:34:13 <phila> phila: I'm happy with this as a WG reolution, but we need to be careful in the spec itself
11:34:19 <ivan> +1
11:34:21 <renato> +1
11:34:25 <victor> +1
11:34:42 <phila> RESOLUTION: A constraint SHOULD carry information to enable the left and right operands to be processed to check whether it has been satisfied
11:35:01 <phila> benws: I think we're in agreement that we have a real requirement, but we may not have defined how to solve it.
11:35:53 <phila> ... We have a req for complex constraints and these 2 resolutions go some way to defining what the resolution
11:35:59 <phila> [Coffee Break]
11:36:18 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
11:36:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes.html phila
11:46:01 <Serena> *I'll have to leave at 13:30 CET for seeing the doctor, so I'll leave my scribing duties a bit earlier to Simon. I hope to be back asap then.*
11:51:02 <Serena> scribe: Serena
11:54:53 <Serena> renato: try to summarize constraints on constraints
11:55:08 <Serena> … we agreed to have multiple constraints on constraints
11:55:34 <renato>    odrl:constraint [
11:55:34 <renato>       a odrl:Constraint ;
11:55:34 <renato>       odrl:subject odrl:play ;
11:55:36 <renato>       odrl:deliveryChannel <https://iata.org/aircraft> ;
11:55:38 <renato>       odrl:operator odrl:eq
11:55:40 <renato>       odrl:source <http://my.co/getTheDeliveryChannel?now>
11:55:42 <renato>     ] ;
11:55:47 <Serena> … here there is a very simple example
11:55:55 <Serena> … two new predicates
11:56:29 <Serena> … odrl:subject and odrl:source
11:57:01 <Serena> … enough information to process left and right operands
11:57:24 <Serena> benws: example of constraints on constraints using subject?
11:57:36 <simonstey> +q
11:57:50 <Serena> ack simonstey
11:58:43 <michaelS> q+
11:58:53 <Serena> renato: it is useful also with multiple actions in a permission
11:58:57 <Serena> q?
11:58:57 <ivan> q+
11:59:15 <Serena> q?
11:59:21 <Serena> ack m
11:59:57 <Serena> michaelS: looking at subject, I'm not sure it is really of help
12:00:38 <phila> scribeNick: Serena
12:00:47 <benws>   q?
12:00:57 <Serena> ack ivan
12:01:14 <Serena> ivan: I'm a little bit unsure about the meaning of subject vs. source
12:01:33 <Serena> … when I talk aboyt constraints in general the subject is what I constrain
12:01:45 <Serena> … while here it seems to be the source
12:01:55 <Serena> renato:  no you constrain the "play"
12:02:10 <michaelS> q+
12:02:32 <Serena> ivan: I create a constraint on an instance
12:02:39 <Serena> … here the subject is a class?
12:02:48 <Serena> … it's not an individual
12:03:04 <Serena> … I'm looking for a very clear statement
12:03:18 <renato>    odrl:action odrl:play ;
12:03:26 <Serena> … I'm not sure to understand if I read it from ouside
12:03:46 <Serena> … we can create a constraint with everything which has an id
12:04:02 <Serena> … which one is the id of the instance here?
12:04:10 <Serena> … it is probably source right?
12:05:05 <Serena> renato: odrl:play is a predicate defined for the action
12:05:44 <renato> odrl:permission [
12:05:44 <renato>     a odrl:Permission ;
12:05:44 <renato>     odrl:assigner <http://socan.ca/> ;
12:05:46 <renato>     odrl:target <http://socan.ca/catalogue> ;
12:05:56 <Serena> … here there is the pre-text
12:06:09 <Serena> … the asset is the catalogue
12:06:38 <Serena> ivan: the whole idea is that we have to make it explicit what is constrained
12:06:55 <Serena> renato: something like "applied to"
12:07:08 <Serena> ivan: yes
12:07:25 <michaelS> q
12:07:39 <benws> q?
12:07:42 <Serena> renato: source, we will find another better name,
12:07:47 <Serena> ack michaelS
12:08:26 <Serena> michaelS: I'm confused now, we said before that we should try to avoid to have all these constraints
12:09:08 <Serena> … is it required to have an explicit reference to the action? Or is it sufficient to say that it refers to the definition of the constraint?
12:09:27 <Serena> … is it really relevant what the action is?
12:09:39 <Serena> renato: right…
12:10:12 <Serena> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/60
12:10:40 <benws> q?
12:10:45 <Serena> benws: can we see this example?
12:12:23 <renato>      a odrl:Constraint ;
12:12:23 <renato>         odrl:event <the-football-game>;
12:12:23 <renato>         odrl:operator odrl:eq ;
12:12:25 <renato>         ] ;
12:13:22 <renato>     a odrl:Constraint ;
12:13:22 <renato>         odrl:appliesTo odrl:event ;
12:13:22 <renato>         odrl:dateTime "P30M" ;
12:13:24 <renato>         odrl:operator odrl:eq
12:13:26 <renato>         ] ;
12:13:46 <Serena> renato: the appllesTo refers to the above constraint
12:14:04 <Serena> … unless we name the constraints
12:14:27 <Serena> … we name the first constraint c1
12:14:51 <Serena> ivan: it would be good to see the whole graph
12:19:06 <Serena> renato: c2 appliesTo c1
12:19:29 <Serena> ivan: what is the specification of the domain of appliesTo?
12:20:10 <Serena> … in c2 you refer to odrl:constraint that is an instance of a class
12:20:20 <benws> q?
12:20:32 <Serena> phila: I'm worried by object being a triple
12:20:54 <Serena> ivan: you need to have a name to the permission
12:21:02 <simonstey_> simonstey_ has joined #poe
12:21:33 <Serena> phila: c2 shouldn't be listed in the permission
12:21:49 <Serena> … because it constrain c1, not pro.com
12:22:45 <benws> q?
12:25:52 <Serena> phila: there shouldn't be a link from the top block to c2 in my view
12:26:15 <Serena> renato: maybe c1 shouldn't be there
12:26:22 <Serena> … in the top block
12:27:10 <Serena> benws: it maybe simpler to have the basic implementation of constraints on constraints
12:28:10 <Serena> michaelS: c2 does not really applies to c1 but to the aircraft of c1
12:28:33 <Serena> *I'm leaving in 2 minutes, simonstey could you please take my place now?*
12:28:40 <simonstey> scribe: simonstey
12:28:52 <Serena> *htnaks simonstey I'll be back asap*
12:29:01 <Serena> *thanks*
12:29:08 <Serena> Serena has left #poe
12:29:39 <simonstey> [discussing about constraint scoping]
12:30:27 <phila> scribeNick: simonstey
12:31:11 <simonstey> renato: [switching from airplane example to datetime/event example]
12:32:13 <simonstey> michaelS: for me it doesn't really make sense.. how do those constraints relate to each other?
12:33:04 <simonstey> ivan: we are dangerously close to have something requiring some sort of event model
12:33:52 <simonstey> phila: well it's something we need to solve somehow.. whether that's the right solution or not
12:34:19 <simonstey> +q
12:34:57 <simonstey> -q
12:35:14 <simonstey> benws: maybe we should have a property called embargotime?
12:35:44 <simonstey> +q
12:36:26 <ivan> q+
12:36:47 <simonstey> benws: I think it is a good example.. eventually it may be pushed into a profile, but for now I think we shouldn't be afraid of redefining semantics
12:37:33 <benws> q?
12:38:10 <phila> q+
12:38:29 <phila> q+ to talk about http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/terms?q=event&type=class
12:39:22 <simonstey> {michael & renato talking about possible solution approaches]
12:40:50 <phila> simonstey: I'm wondering where we draw the line between generic and specific use cases
12:41:09 <phila> ... I don't think it makes sense to come up with a property that refers to the end of an event specifically
12:41:53 <phila> benws: If we allow ourselves to be free on the semantics for now, we see how we end up after working on an example or two. Maybe start with pay amount example
12:42:12 <phila> renato: So you want to get rid of A$ as a constraint
12:42:55 <benws> q?
12:42:58 <simonstey> ack simonstey
12:43:10 <simonstey> renato: what if the unit is a constraint term itself?
12:43:42 <phila> q-
12:43:46 <phila> ack i
12:44:18 <simonstey> ivan: relating to something we discussed earlier (the football example)
12:44:25 <simonstey> ... we don't know what an event is
12:44:39 <simonstey> ... ODRL doesn't define what an event is
12:45:10 <ivan> http://motools.sourceforge.net/event/event.html
12:45:31 <phila> q+
12:45:45 <phila> q-
12:45:49 <simonstey> ... e.g., for events we may define properties that we can constrain
12:46:06 <benws> q?
12:46:15 <phila> q+ to talk about blank nodes
12:46:16 <simonstey> ... maybe taking the event ontology as guidance
12:46:49 <simonstey> benws: can we take the unit out and make it a seperate constraint?
12:47:04 <phila> q+ to talk about odrl:payAmount [rdf:value 100; odrl:unit "USD"]
12:47:10 <phila> ack mew
12:47:15 <phila> ]ack me
12:47:18 <phila> ack me
12:47:18 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about blank nodes and to talk about odrl:payAmount [rdf:value 100; odrl:unit "USD"]
12:47:35 <simonstey> phila: the value of payamount is defined as xsd:decimal
12:47:41 <phila> odrl:payAmount [rdf:value 100; odrl:unit "USD"]
12:48:06 <simonstey> ... for rdf that means we could use a blank node
12:48:47 <simonstey> benws: but this would require defining complex objects for each and every situation beforehand
12:48:56 <ivan> q+
12:49:11 <simonstey> benws: but this would require defining complex objects
12:49:14 <simonstey> ...  for each and every situation beforehand
12:49:44 <ivan> q-
12:49:51 <simonstey> -q ...
12:50:27 <simonstey> renato: we also have to think about the general info model
12:50:48 <simonstey> ... we don't only have RDF but other serializations too
12:51:24 <James_> James_ has joined #poe
12:51:34 <simonstey> ... [working on webex whiteboard example]
12:52:39 <benws> q?
12:53:36 <simonstey> ivan: how do I properly define the meaning of odrl:unit in that case?
12:53:39 <James_> present+
12:53:57 <simonstey> ... what's the definition of currency?
12:54:37 <simonstey> ivan: it doesnt really define what the currency/unit constraint really mean?
12:55:00 <simonstey> ... how do those two constraints exactly relate to each other?
12:55:18 <simonstey> ... how do I determine the leftoperand of :c5
12:56:39 <simonstey> ... :c5's odrl:eq refers to a property that isn't contained in :c5
12:56:57 <simonstey> ... there is no clear definition on what a constraint applies on
12:57:05 <benws> q?
12:57:11 <simonstey> ... applying it on a class instance as we currently do, doesn't cut it
12:58:40 <simonstey> michaelS: I feel that what you talked about ivan relates to what we did already, i.e. going through all current constraint definitions and refurbish/clarify their descriptions
13:01:56 <simonstey> benws: we want the rightoperand of c4 to say 50aud(?)
13:02:49 <simonstey> phila: i think that's actually not a constraint itself but more of an extension
13:02:59 <simonstey> ... to an existing constraint
13:03:24 <victor> +Q
13:03:25 <victor> Q+
13:04:05 <benws> q?
13:04:05 <simonstey> victor: 1) we have an ontology, so we have the opportunity to be precise
13:04:43 <simonstey> ... 2) we have agreed before the break that we won't be able to have complex constraints on complex constraints
13:05:09 <simonstey> ... iirc
13:06:12 <simonstey> ... but haven't we said we wont have a constraint on a constraint on a constraint .. ?
13:06:38 <simonstey> +1
13:06:43 <benws> q?
13:06:49 <victor> Q-
13:06:50 <victor> -q
13:06:53 <benws> ack victor
13:07:01 <simonstey> phila: the thing that worries me about ODRL is trying to enumerate possible solutions
13:07:30 <simonstey> ... which would be outdated the moment you are publishing it
13:08:21 <simonstey> ivan: you can define your own datatypes..
13:08:52 <benws> q?
13:09:09 <simonstey> ... which might be dependend on particular profiles
13:10:14 <simonstey> phila: I would be happier to have complex objects instead of all the things we try to enumerate
13:10:30 <simonstey> ... and/or having constraints on constraints on contraints..
13:10:38 <victor> +1
13:11:54 <simonstey> renato: where does that leave us?
13:12:10 <simonstey> ivan: maybe pushing the complexity somewhere else
13:12:20 <simonstey> ... i.e. keeping the current 1 layer constraint model
13:13:18 <simonstey> michaelS: some leftoperands are covering spatial constraints
13:13:56 <simonstey> +q
13:15:21 <simonstey> phila: there are defined regions/subregions but you won't need geometry
13:15:29 <simonstey> ack simonstey
13:15:47 <simonstey> renato: I'll try to summarize
13:16:08 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Constraints
13:16:19 <simonstey> ... seems as if we will try to keep the status quo
13:16:54 <simonstey> ... improve/extend constraint concepts as described in the respective wiki page
13:17:22 <simonstey> ... does that mean we would need to deprecate e.g. odrl:unit?
13:17:41 <simonstey> ... I've to check how that translates to XML
13:18:19 <simonstey> ... github issues 62 & 60 will be updated, i.e. that we improve the definition of constraints
13:18:28 <victor> +1
13:19:13 <simonstey> benws: aren't they two different issues?
13:19:21 <simonstey> renato: 62 is constraints on constraints
13:19:41 <simonstey> ... 60 is about the subject of a constraint
13:20:28 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#POE.R.DM.02_Define_target_of_a_constraint
13:20:33 <benws> q?
13:20:57 <simonstey> ... trying to figure out what this requires us to change
13:21:36 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/59
13:21:41 <simonstey> ... constraints may apply to assets/parties too
13:21:52 <simonstey> ... so it's probably more related to issue 59
13:23:30 <simonstey> ivan: I think it's better to have everything we decide/agree too to have also persisted on github
13:23:54 <simonstey> ... maybe change the label to editorial
13:24:05 <simonstey> ... but first we have to agree here
13:25:04 <renato> Proposal: For Issue#60 we work on improved Constraint Definitions and include non-simple values for some constraints where it makes sense
13:25:15 <ivan> +1
13:25:39 <phila> +1
13:25:41 <CarolineB> +1
13:25:41 <Sabrina> +1
13:25:42 <simonstey> +0.5
13:25:43 <James_> +1
13:25:43 <renato> +1
13:25:52 <michaelS> +1
13:26:02 <victor> +1
13:26:11 <renato> Resolved: For Issue#60 we work on improved Constraint Definitions and include non-simple values for some constraints where it makes sense
13:26:11 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
13:26:11 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-irc#T13-26-11-1
13:27:26 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:27:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes.html phila
13:27:42 <michaelS> back at xx:40
13:40:58 <Sabrina> yip
13:43:23 <simonstey> renato: we continue with issue59
13:43:30 <Sabrina> im eating lunch sorry
13:43:59 <simonstey> scribe: victor
13:44:03 <victor> scribe: victor
13:44:05 <simonstey> scribeNick: victor
13:44:46 <renato> <http://socan.ca/tariff:13A>
13:44:46 <renato>   a odrl:Offer ;
13:44:46 <renato>   odrl:permission [
13:44:48 <renato>     a odrl:Permission ;
13:44:50 <renato>     odrl:assigner <http://socan.ca/> ;
13:44:52 <renato>     odrl:target <http://socan.ca/catalogue> ;
13:44:54 <renato>     odrl:constraint [
13:44:56 <renato>       a odrl:Constraint ;
13:44:58 <renato>       odrl:subject <http://socan.ca/catalogue> ;
13:45:00 <renato>       odrl:language <urn:ietf:bcp47:fr> ;
13:45:02 <renato>       odrl:operator odrl:eq
13:45:04 <renato>     ] ;
13:45:06 <renato>     odrl:action odrl:play ;
13:45:57 <michaelS> q+
13:47:18 <simonstey> +q
13:47:51 <phila> ack m]
13:47:51 <phila> ack m
13:47:52 <simonstey> ack michaelS
13:47:55 <victor> michaelS: in the ODRL community, it was said "this will be defined by the definition of the assignees"
13:48:30 <victor> michaelS: for example, adults being +18 would be part of a specific profile, as it makes the process quite complex.
13:48:51 <victor> simonstey: we have enough constraints concepts that can be checked.
13:49:14 <victor> simonstey: constraints for actions mean "if the constraint is not valid, the permission is not active".
13:49:47 <benws> q?
13:49:53 <victor> simonstey: whereas we want to remove certain assets from a group of assets etc. Shall this remain up to the implementors? Shall we define it?
13:49:58 <benws> ack sim
13:50:28 <victor> renato: the current model for parties at least has the concept of "scope" (attribute that indicate the context)
13:50:53 <victor> renato: having for the moment at least the values "individual" and "group". but nothing prevents from having other URIs, like "http://has18year.old"
13:51:18 <victor> benws: so, again, the question is whether the complexity is within or outside ODRL
13:51:37 <victor> renato: but scope does exist, at least for parties --not for assets though.
13:52:07 <victor> simonstey: this adds extra complexity for formally defining the semantics
13:52:51 <victor> simonstey: possible mess with individuals/groups and policies differently declared for them.
13:53:48 <victor> renato: the group scope for the party is used so that "each individual member of a group" should see the same policies, the policy applies for each of the members.
13:54:00 <benws> q?
13:54:42 <victor> renato: so the problem was already there. maybe we can add scope to the asset
13:54:56 <victor> renato: Two alternatives: constraint model vs scope model
13:55:28 <Sabrina> +1 for scope
13:55:33 <michaelS> +1 for scope
13:55:40 <benws> +1
13:55:43 <CarolineB> +1 scope
13:56:21 <James_> happy to explore
13:56:50 <michaelS> q+
13:56:58 <victor> renato: proposal to augment the scope attribute to asset as well
13:57:17 <victor> michaelS: scope is more about how to interprete the group.
13:57:34 <victor> victor: my concern is about inconsistencies
13:58:07 <victor> +1
13:58:34 <victor> victor: we should have a list of "actions" to be made on policies, whose behaviour should be defined and tested in the testbeds.
13:58:44 <victor> victor: like for example "inconsistency detection".
13:59:12 <victor> RESOLVED: to add the scope mechanism to the assets.
13:59:53 <victor> topic: issue 58
14:00:04 <victor> renato: does anybody object to
14:00:23 <victor> renato: unit of count expressed as a new constraint?
14:00:47 <victor> PROPOSED: to create a new righthand operator for unit of count.
14:01:01 <victor> RESOLVED: to create a new righthand operator for unit of count.
14:01:04 <benws> +1
14:01:05 <renato> +1
14:01:07 <victor> +1
14:01:08 <Sabrina> +1
14:01:10 <michaelS> +1 - for a left hand operator
14:01:11 <ivan> +1
14:01:17 <simonstey> 0
14:01:22 <CarolineB> +1
14:02:08 <victor> s/to create a new righthand operator for unit of count./to create a new left hand operand for unit of count.
14:02:17 <victor> topic: issue f6 in github
14:02:24 <victor> s/f6/56
14:02:52 <victor> Issue56: rightOperand is a reference to a value
14:02:59 <victor> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/56
14:02:59 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/56
14:04:09 <victor> renato: shall we overload the meaning of datatypes like xsd:anyURI?
14:04:31 <victor> renato: we may say that if we find this datatype we should understand "go there and retrieve that".
14:04:49 <victor> q+
14:05:00 <michaelS> q-
14:05:12 <phila> ack v
14:05:28 <victor> xsd:string
14:05:30 <victor> xsd:anyURI
14:05:52 <victor> victor: in RDF I will be using URIs very often.
14:06:25 <victor> renato: we can distinguish both cases with datatypes.
14:06:33 <Sabrina> q+
14:06:54 <victor> sabrina: why dont we use webId?
14:07:14 <Sabrina> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebID
14:07:30 <phila> ack s
14:07:31 <ivan> q+
14:08:02 <victor> phila, do you mean https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/14?
14:08:09 <victor> ivan: webid is not widely used
14:08:31 <victor> sabrina: ok. agreed.
14:09:19 <victor> ivan: concerned but in a imprecise manner
14:09:29 <Sabrina> q+
14:10:32 <phila> q+
14:10:37 <phila> ack i
14:10:39 <ivan> ack ivan
14:11:12 <victor> sabrina: in lisboa we were always thinking about the support to XML
14:11:35 <victor> renato: but after we polled, we agreed that XML was in use
14:11:51 <phila> ack s
14:11:57 <phila> ack me
14:12:37 <victor> phila: mostly agrees with ivan, but also in an unprecise manner
14:13:06 <victor> phila: i prefer calling it "API call"
14:14:16 <victor> renato: what is the working group feelings?
14:16:16 <victor> phila: there might be problems if a dumb parser finds the URL and does not know that it is an API call.
14:16:48 <victor> phila: perhaps this can be done with a new property. instead of rightOperand, having rightOperandRef etc.
14:17:27 <benws> q?
14:18:44 <victor> victor: we may use it in other places
14:18:48 <victor> benws: like a moving target
14:19:02 <victor> renato: having a "moving action" is not a thing that will happen .
14:19:09 <victor> victor: i cannot think that fast, cannot judge
14:19:48 <victor> PROPOSED: In order to support API calls, we add a new property rightOperandReference, and a new class
14:19:59 <victor> +1
14:20:06 <CarolineB> +1
14:20:09 <michaelS> +1
14:20:12 <simonstey> -0
14:20:18 <Sabrina> 0
14:20:28 <victor> RESOLVED: In order to support API calls, we add a new property rightOperandReference, and a new class
14:20:36 <victor> topics: issue 63
14:20:45 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/63
14:20:51 <victor> Extended relations
14:21:04 <phila> s/Extended relations/Topic: Extended relations/
14:21:11 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:21:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes.html phila
14:21:19 <renato> RESOLUTION: That the extended relations (AND, OR, XOR) will only apply to Duties and Constraints, not Permissions and Prohibitions
14:21:25 <victor> renato: We had decided to apply exnteded relations exclusively to duties and constraints.
14:21:29 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-poe-minutes
14:22:09 <victor> renato: do you have any comment or questions on that?
14:22:49 <simonstey> c1 xor c2
14:22:52 <phila> s/RESOLUTION/Earlier resolution (from 17 Oct):/
14:22:52 <victor> victor: i support it
14:22:55 <simonstey> c1 appliesTo c2
14:23:06 <benws> q?
14:23:19 <victor> renato: we are expecting input here.
14:24:16 <victor> simonstey: we may have chains of constraints
14:25:33 <victor> ivan: i agree that we may have cornercases, but we leave it as a mere possibility
14:25:51 <victor> renato: i posed an example on the use of XOR
14:26:49 <simonstey> +q
14:27:36 <victor> benws: we have also good examples. although they can be separed into two different constraints
14:28:03 <simonstey> q?
14:29:36 <victor> simonstey: it is also relevant for remedies. in the Austrian law, if you do something (steal a car) you can choose the remedy (jail or pay X)
14:31:30 <victor> benws: +1
14:32:35 <victor> victor: to send a reference to the similar solution adopted in MPEG-21 Media Contract Ontology
14:33:18 <victor> RESOLVED: changes still to be proposed in the information model.
14:33:36 <michaelS> scribe: michaelS
14:33:57 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/48
14:33:59 <michaelS> Topic: Policy versioning https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/48
14:33:59 <benws> q?
14:34:19 <simonstey> ack simonstey
14:35:04 <michaelS> benws: could we use the version terms from another vocabulary?
14:35:42 <michaelS> renato:  listed some examples: draft, approved, ...
14:36:05 <michaelS> ivan: wo should look at terms from other standards first
14:36:13 <michaelS> s/wo/we
14:36:29 <simonstey> q+
14:36:34 <michaelS> benws: validfrom, validto, isdraft
14:37:12 <michaelS> simonstey: dont' valid... overlap with constraints?
14:38:36 <michaelS> ... a policy as such has no rules = permission/prohibition/duty
14:39:03 <michaelS> benws: a new policy could retire an old policy
14:39:40 <michaelS> simonstey: not happy about the terms "valid ..."
14:40:25 <benws> q?
14:40:31 <simonstey> ack simonstey
14:40:33 <phila> q+ to point to PAV
14:40:34 <benws> ack simon
14:40:54 <michaelS> renato: we can express temporal constraints for permissions ...
14:40:58 <michaelS> q+
14:41:02 <phila> ack me
14:41:02 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to point to PAV
14:41:06 <phila> -> http://pav-ontology.github.io/pav/ PAV
14:41:38 <michaelS> phila: governance and versioning covers what was raised as need
14:42:11 <michaelS> q-
14:42:38 <simonstey> we also have to take inheritance into account
14:43:03 <michaelS> ivan: we should check first which standards provide what this group needs
14:43:21 <michaelS> renato: do we have the knowledge of other standards to take this action?
14:43:39 <michaelS> ... anybody of this groups wants to list the requirements
14:43:51 <michaelS> benws: committed to do that
14:44:14 <michaelS> Action: List required versioning properties
14:44:14 <trackbot> Error finding 'List'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/users>.
14:44:55 <michaelS> renato: went over editoral issues at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/48
14:45:15 <phila> action: ben to list required versioning properties
14:45:17 <michaelS> ... correct URL https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues
14:45:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - List required versioning properties [on Benedict Whittam Smith - due 2016-12-12].
14:46:11 <michaelS> renato: started discussing https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/80
14:46:49 <simonstey> +q
14:47:38 <michaelS> simonstey: disadvantages are more relevant than the benefits
14:47:57 <michaelS> ... of having multiple actions in a rule
14:49:20 <michaelS> benws: worried about permission explosion
14:49:34 <CarolineB> *me Really sorry - have to go for anappointment
14:49:47 <michaelS> ... can thing about applying 30 permissions by a policy
14:49:54 <michaelS> s/thing/think
14:50:15 <simonstey> The Child Policy MUST override the Parent Policy. i.e.: If the same Action appears in the Parent, then it is replaced by the Child version, otherwise the Parent Actions are added to the Child’s Actions.
14:50:29 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#inhertiance
14:51:55 <michaelS> renato  and benws: if constraints apply only to a subset another permissions has to be created
14:52:55 <michaelS> benws: typically the same constraints apply to all actions permitted form an asset
14:53:10 <michaelS> q+
14:53:19 <phila> ack s
14:54:08 <michaelS> simonstey: re the previous discussion: doesn't this makes a permission complex
14:55:43 <michaelS> benws: listes examples for actions which could have the same constraint
14:55:51 <michaelS> s/listes/listed
14:57:33 <michaelS> simonstey: is afraid of drawbacks not noticed yet
15:00:02 <michaelS> simonstey: not sure if having three different permission will be understood in the same way as having one permission with three actions
15:00:44 <michaelS> renato: this would be a major change to the Information Model, needs a clear definition
15:00:51 <michaelS> q-
15:01:18 <michaelS> simonstey: proposed not to take a decision on that today - people should have time to consider that change
15:02:02 <michaelS> renato: agreed to that - invited all to go over issue 80
15:02:32 <michaelS> renato: said we should switch over to the Vocabulary issues
15:02:53 <michaelS> ... see https://github.com/w3c/poe/milestone/2
15:03:25 <phila> Topic: Vocabulary issues
15:04:00 <michaelS> renato: biggest issue is https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/64
15:04:03 <renato> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dVAV6-IJkzlCCoF_ec-ywwUPVmtYuV89tk5ikqY-soQ/edit#gid=1234055905
15:04:19 <michaelS> ... look at the responses of the user survey
15:05:14 <michaelS> ... the open issue is to go over the current vocab and sort out into normantive and non-normative terms
15:05:59 <phila> q+ to share experience from DWBP
15:06:00 <michaelS> ... should we update the vocab based on results of this survey?
15:06:29 <phila> ack me
15:06:29 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to share experience from DWBP
15:06:30 <michaelS> ... any comment?
15:07:15 <simonstey> q+ to ask about the necessity of enumerating actions when there's the possibility to define profiles anyway
15:07:25 <michaelS> phila: we should check who plans to use term - how widely will it be used in practice?
15:09:16 <michaelS> benws: clarified: Reuters Media is more about news distribution, Thomson Reuters about distribution of financial data
15:09:34 <michaelS> ... should be merged at some point in time
15:10:36 <michaelS> renato: is the requirement for a CR to have at least 2 implementations?
15:11:30 <michaelS> phila: this is a definition by the group - it could be considered in which different business sectors they should be implemented
15:12:24 <michaelS> renato:  ok, let's discuss this later
15:12:32 <simonstey> q?
15:12:58 <simonstey> ack simon
15:12:58 <Zakim> simonstey, you wanted to ask about the necessity of enumerating actions when there's the possibility to define profiles anyway
15:13:14 <michaelS> renato: backt to sorting out normative/non-normative
15:13:30 <phila> -> https://twitter.com/philarcher1/status/803890261713625088 My Tweet showing slide by DBPedia use of ODRL, see top left of pic
15:14:18 <michaelS> simonstey: most of the current Action terms don't have to be normative by his understanding, only use and transfer could be made normative
15:15:01 <michaelS> ... a lot of the definitions of the Actions need to be reworked.
15:16:54 <michaelS> renato: if an action term is consideres as of wide used it would help to have a definition
15:17:56 <michaelS> simonstey: if he and others from universtities would be involved in the ODRL Community work other terms would be added, e.g. query.
15:18:16 <michaelS> phila: We are not defining an ODRL process, but a vocabulary
15:18:39 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/#conformance Conformance with ORG
15:18:58 <michaelS> ... will look at the confirmance statement from another vocab (see url)
15:19:21 <simonstey> +q
15:20:02 <ivan> q+
15:20:05 <phila> ack s
15:20:30 <michaelS> simonstey: sees only a need for normative relationships between terms but not for normative terms
15:21:33 <michaelS> ivan: another example: Annotation Working Group - 2 documents: data model and the vocabulary docs
15:21:39 <ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#candidate-recommendation-exit-criteria
15:21:52 <michaelS> q+
15:22:27 <ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/vocab/wd/#candidate-recommendation-exit-criteria
15:23:30 <michaelS> ... the data model document is much more strict, the vocab is only strict about some basic requirements, less about the terms
15:24:40 <benws> q?
15:24:57 <ivan> ack ivan
15:25:03 <phila> ack m
15:25:06 <benws> q+
15:26:53 <michaelS> michaelS: IPTC sorts our data models (normative) and vocabs (non-normative), but some vocabs are essential for the data model - like e.g. the Policy Types for ODRL
15:27:34 <michaelS> ivan: we should not sort out individual ODRL terms about terms for a specific - required - purpose
15:28:05 <michaelS> s/about/but
15:28:43 <michaelS> benws:  liked this principle - think about the role of Roles in ODRL
15:28:59 <michaelS> s/Roles/Profiles
15:29:49 <michaelS> renato: look at the survey results and terms and keep only the most wanted terms
15:29:49 <ivan> q+
15:29:53 <ivan> ack benws
15:29:54 <simonstey> +q
15:30:15 <michaelS> phila: do we have a cutoff-date for that?
15:30:26 <michaelS> renato: we have a timeline agenda items
15:30:57 <ivan> ack ivan
15:31:26 <renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#profile
15:31:30 <michaelS> ivan: fine with that approach. We should add a non-normative text about how profiles should be created and look like
15:31:45 <simonstey> q-
15:31:48 <michaelS> renato: shared the link for that
15:31:55 <simonstey> +q
15:32:18 <michaelS> ... we are in a starting phase about profiles
15:32:29 <phila> q+ to talk about profiles
15:32:40 <michaelS> ivan: We need an explicit statement that this document is not normative
15:33:08 <ivan> ack simonstey
15:33:39 <michaelS> simonstey: we should explain how to add their own action terms to a basic ODRL Action Vocab
15:34:07 <michaelS> michaelS: we have SKOS
15:34:31 <michaelS> simonstey: we may need more than the SKOS relationships
15:34:40 <phila> ack me
15:34:40 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about profiles
15:35:35 <michaelS> phila: re profiles: run a workshop about vocabulary profiles ... will discuss many facets of that, a working group for that should be established in 2017
15:37:24 <phila> Topic: UCR
15:37:26 <michaelS> Topic: POE Use Cases and Requirements
15:37:46 <renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/
15:38:05 <michaelS> simonstey: has intensively worked on the Editors Draft http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/
15:39:06 <michaelS> ... this document is in line with what we have on the Wiki page https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements
15:39:37 <michaelS> renato: this document looks good
15:40:15 <michaelS> benws: asked to set a clear due date for all documents
15:41:11 <michaelS> renato: so far no real activities on the Formal Semantics and the Best Practices documents
15:41:21 <phila> Topic: Time line and steps to CR
15:41:26 <michaelS> Topic: Timeline and Steps to CR
15:42:20 <michaelS> ... the question is: what will happen after having a CR?
15:43:49 <michaelS> phila: before going to CR: approve people outside have looked at it. The group should try to approach people to get wide reviews - and this should be documented.
15:44:06 <michaelS> ivan: let's use Github for that
15:44:48 <michaelS> phila: the group should respond to the review of a reviewer - and the reviewer should be happy with the comment
15:45:06 <ivan> q+
15:45:08 <michaelS> ... finally no standing issues are allowed
15:45:57 <michaelS> phila: The W3C director may be interested in having many reviews and less in the content
15:46:49 <michaelS> ivan: added: we have to contact the horizontal reviewers in other working groups soon
15:47:03 <michaelS> ... as early as possible
15:48:05 <michaelS> ... security issue: the RC document must include security considerations - we have to check what's a security issue
15:48:27 <michaelS> ... every week counts
15:48:58 <michaelS> renato: should we create a list of about 50 persons and invite them?
15:49:19 <michaelS> phila: we could create a template email for this purpose
15:49:42 <michaelS> renato: how long takes a horizontal review?
15:50:37 <michaelS> ivan: unpredictable - it may take a long time. We should tell them when POE wants to go to a CR - suggested to plan 3 months for that.
15:51:11 <michaelS> renato: is the planned f2f in March to early?
15:51:37 <michaelS> ivan: inclined to say yes.
15:51:51 <michaelS> phila: consider Easter in April
15:52:44 <michaelS> phila: proposed the week of 24 April
15:53:58 <michaelS> ivan: feels that a CR could get ready in mid-May
15:54:20 <michaelS> ... in summer time implementation reports shoudl not be expected
15:55:24 <michaelS> ... PR could be expected in October
15:56:16 <michaelS> ... the group needs to define a testing scenario and share that with the implementers
15:57:10 <michaelS> ... have a look at what the Annotation WG - this group may reuse some parts of that set up.
15:57:41 <michaelS> ... we need a person of this WG who commits to be behind all the testing and implementations
15:58:13 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:58:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes.html phila
15:58:57 <michaelS> renato: thanks for this imput. As a next step we need a timeline with all the required steps.
15:59:09 <michaelS> ... this will result in much more work by this WG as expected.
15:59:46 <michaelS> ivan: Members of this group should consider who could do testing in their company/organisationb
16:00:10 <phila> phila: Thanks to everyone
16:00:15 <Sabrina> thanks folks....
16:00:34 <michaelS> renato: thanks to all for the input and contributions to this call
16:00:51 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:00:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-poe-minutes.html phila
16:02:26 <renato> renato has joined #poe
16:52:51 <ivan> ivan has joined #poe
17:07:15 <renato> renato has joined #poe
17:51:38 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe
17:58:02 <ivan> ivan has joined #poe
18:04:58 <phila_> phila_ has joined #poe
18:36:30 <renato> renato has joined #poe
18:58:47 <ivan> ivan has joined #poe
19:59:41 <ivan> ivan has joined #poe
20:07:48 <renato> renato has joined #poe
21:20:53 <benws2> benws2 has joined #poe
21:37:13 <renato> renato has joined #poe
22:01:57 <ivan> ivan has joined #poe
23:07:44 <renato> renato has joined #poe