12:26:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:26:56 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/09-poe-irc
12:26:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:26:58 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:27:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
12:27:00 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:27:01 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:27:01 <trackbot> Date: 09 January 2017
12:27:34 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170109
12:27:42 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:28:01 <phila> chair: Renato
12:28:45 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
12:30:26 <Serena> present+ Serena
12:30:31 <renato> present+ renato
12:31:28 <michaelS> present+ michaelS
12:32:33 <benws> present+ benws
12:32:53 <michaelS> scribe: michaelS
12:33:00 <michaelS> scribenick: michaelS
12:33:01 <phila> present+
12:33:13 <michaelS> topic: approve last meeting minutes
12:33:18 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-poe-minutes.html
12:33:34 <Serena> +1
12:33:34 <michaelS> renato: any updates or comments?
12:33:37 <michaelS> +1
12:33:50 <phila> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 12/12/16 approved
12:33:53 <michaelS> ... hearing not comments
12:33:58 <Sabrina> Sabrina has joined #poe
12:34:01 <michaelS> resolution: minutes accepted
12:34:19 <michaelS> Topic: issues needing a WG Decision
12:34:22 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/labels/Needs%20WG%20Decision
12:34:49 <Sabrina> present+ Sabrina
12:34:56 <phila> -> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/84 Issue 84
12:34:56 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/84
12:35:14 <michaelS> First issue #84
12:35:25 <michaelS> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/84
12:35:29 <simonstey> present+
12:36:11 <michaelS> renato: outlined the change: creating a new explicit leftOperand property taking the name of the constraint
12:36:31 <michaelS> ... this makes the structure quite clear
12:36:46 <phila> q+
12:37:23 <michaelS> phila: seems clear. does this solve the relative times use case?
12:37:31 <michaelS> renato: sorry, but it doesn't
12:37:51 <michaelS> benws: is that a kind of ontoloy housekeeping
12:38:27 <phila> q+ to go on about i18n
12:38:29 <michaelS> renato: the current way of expressing is not wrong but not easy to follow. The change makes things clearer
12:38:45 <James> James has joined #poe
12:39:50 <michaelS> phila: Worries about the relationship "constraint" leading to "Constraint" - he is not perfect as some langauges has not upper/lower case script
12:40:14 <michaelS> renato: "has constraint" is the human readable label
12:40:24 <James> present+
12:40:39 <renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-constraint
12:41:00 <michaelS> phila: agrees to this workaround but would be happier about an explicit property id
12:41:35 <michaelS> benws: having 2 URIs for the same property?
12:41:40 <michaelS> phila: yes
12:42:03 <michaelS> renato: not happy about having two properties for the same use
12:42:27 <michaelS> phila: would deprecate "constraint" and create "hasConstraint"
12:43:33 <simonstey> +q
12:43:43 <phila> ack me
12:43:43 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to go on about i18n
12:44:17 <phila> ack s
12:44:22 <smyles> smyles has joined #poe
12:44:27 <smyles> present+
12:44:34 <michaelS> simonstey: didn't we have the same discussion about other properties? Does not like having "has..." and "..." properties
12:45:01 <michaelS> renato: after the Lisbon meeting some properties got a "has" prefixed to the label
12:45:29 <michaelS> renato: any objections to the proposal os #84?
12:45:40 <michaelS> s/os/of
12:46:00 <michaelS> ... hearing none concluded that is agreed
12:46:09 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/82
12:46:12 <michaelS> renato: issue 82
12:47:20 <michaelS> renato: outlined the change: this proposal allows to have a party or asset also at the Policy level, both apply to any rule of this policy
12:47:37 <michaelS> be
12:48:07 <michaelS> benws: what if party/asset exist at the Policy and the Rule level
12:48:19 <michaelS> renato: this would be an invalid use
12:48:25 <michaelS> q+
12:48:51 <smyles> q+
12:49:09 <simonstey> q+
12:49:10 <michaelS> benws: multiple uses would be useful
12:49:47 <michaelS> renato: a mix of parties and assets not of help
12:50:20 <simonstey> ack michaelS
12:50:41 <James> q+
12:50:44 <simonstey> ack smyles
12:51:13 <michaelS> smyles: is this a change to the information model
12:51:53 <michaelS> renato: it is a change to the model but not a significant one
12:52:22 <michaelS> smyles: is this only a change of the syntax only
12:52:42 <michaelS> benws: not a change, improves the precision
12:53:20 <simonstey> Party: the Permission MAY refer to one or more Party entities linked via the Role entity (OPTIONAL)
12:53:21 <michaelS> simonstey: doesn't see the need for making a policy wiht party/asset at Policy and Rule level invalid
12:54:21 <michaelS> ... if we stick to that we need to reword the specification
12:54:47 <michaelS> q+
12:54:58 <simonstey> ack simonstey
12:55:03 <simonstey> ack James
12:56:00 <michaelS> James: we opted for having a flexible set of permissions/prohibitions
12:56:41 <victor> victor has joined #poe
12:57:11 <phila> q+
12:57:17 <michaelS> michaelS: having party/asset at both levels would make users using both - not reading the free-text specs
12:57:21 <michaelS> ack Zakim
12:57:22 <phila> ack me
12:57:26 <michaelS> ack michaelS
12:58:04 <victor> present+ victor
12:58:31 <michaelS> phila: would it reduce to use an explicit "inherit" in Rules indicating that the value of the Policy level should be used
12:58:54 <michaelS> s/reduce/reduce the problme
12:58:57 <benws> q+
12:59:14 <phila> ack b
13:00:03 <James> +1
13:00:08 <Serena> +1
13:00:20 <michaelS> benws: I like the feature, in 99% of the cases only the policy level would be used. We should decide either "union" or "overwrite"
13:00:47 <Serena> +1 for overwriting
13:01:04 <phila> q+
13:01:36 <michaelS> renato: Option 1: a party/asset in a Rule overwrites party/asset of the Policy level
13:01:54 <Sabrina> q+
13:02:46 <michaelS> phila: the information model should include a test including this feature
13:02:50 <phila> ack me
13:03:05 <simonstey> fwiw, https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements#POE.R.R_Processing_Rules
13:03:14 <simonstey> ack Sabrina
13:03:34 <simonstey> +q
13:04:04 <michaelS> Sabrina: pointed at the conflict resolution of ODRL. The more generic should take precedence over more specific
13:05:03 <simonstey> ack simonstey
13:05:04 <michaelS> simonstey: this conflict resolution does not define (yet) anything for assets and parties, this needs to be explicitly added
13:06:10 <michaelS> ... we should think of the use case of having party/asset in a parent policy, how are they inherited in a child policy?
13:08:14 <michaelS> renato: agreed that this feature of policy inheritance was not reviewed yet
13:08:49 <phila> q+ to talk about https://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#powderprocessor as an example
13:09:14 <michaelS> ... current options: keep it as it is or adding party/asset to the policy level with an "overwrite" rule
13:09:22 <simonstey> +q
13:09:28 <phila> ack me
13:09:28 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about https://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#powderprocessor as an example
13:09:33 <michaelS> benws: renato and Serena shoudl have a look at the policy inheritance first
13:10:31 <michaelS> phila:  pointed a the Powder Processor - the work on that ended with a section rules for making software conformant.
13:10:50 <michaelS> s/section/section of
13:11:19 <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.
13:11:25 <phila> ack s
13:12:42 <michaelS> simonstey: pointed at overly compex rules in the context of policy inheritance - the ODRL specs should not go in this direction
13:13:42 <Sabrina> q+
13:13:43 <michaelS> renato: inheritance was understood well in the ODRL 2.1 (and earlier) wordl
13:13:53 <phila> q?
13:13:57 <phila> ack s
13:15:03 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/73
13:15:05 <michaelS> renato: Issue #73
13:15:45 <michaelS> renato: outlined the change: this change allows to have multiple actions per rule
13:16:05 <michaelS> ... e.g. distributed, printed and more in the same rule
13:16:21 <benws> q+
13:16:21 <simonstey> +q
13:16:29 <michaelS> ... in fact a shortcut of many rules with only different actions
13:16:32 <simonstey> ack benws
13:16:49 <michaelS> benws: likes this change.
13:18:02 <michaelS> ... this could speed up the processing.
13:19:20 <michaelS> simonstey: felt that this could have been done already by users not reading the specs :-(
13:19:42 <Sabrina> +q
13:19:47 <phila> ack si
13:19:47 <simonstey> ack simonstey
13:20:10 <michaelS> ... but are a list of rules and the same combined into one semantically the same.
13:20:25 <michaelS> ... in this case that must be defined explicitly.
13:20:54 <Serena> * we should check carefully inheritance in this case too *
13:21:54 <victor> +1
13:22:20 <michaelS> benws: Can we apply the same logic to assets = having multiple in a rule?
13:22:38 <michaelS> renato: could be ...
13:22:44 <victor> I would handle assets in the same manner, using the same logic.
13:22:45 <Sabrina> +q
13:22:48 <michaelS> benws: suggest to have a look at both
13:22:52 <michaelS> renato: agreed.
13:23:46 <michaelS> Sabrina: shouldn't that apply to parties too?
13:24:08 <michaelS> renato: yes, but already yet multiply parties may be assigned to a single rule
13:24:21 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/72
13:24:23 <michaelS> renato:  Issue #72
13:25:32 <michaelS> renato: outlined the change: return to the original approach of "odrl-vocab"
13:26:03 <Sabrina> +1
13:26:05 <victor> +1
13:26:05 <Serena> +1
13:26:05 <smyles> +1
13:26:05 <renato> +1
13:26:10 <James> +1
13:26:59 <renato> Proposal: change vocab short name to "odrl-vocab"
13:27:21 <simonstey> +1
13:27:23 <Sabrina> +1
13:27:25 <Serena> +1
13:27:26 <smyles> +1
13:27:35 <renato> Resolved: change vocab short name to "odrl-vocab"
13:27:50 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/48
13:27:55 <michaelS> Issue #48
13:28:07 <michaelS> issue #48
13:28:19 <michaelS> Topic: issue #48
13:28:49 <michaelS> renato: invited group members to have a look at that issue and to submit comments
13:28:51 <simonstey> +1
13:28:53 <simonstey> -1
13:28:54 <simonstey> +q
13:29:03 <simonstey> ack Sabrina
13:29:19 <benws> q+
13:29:23 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:29:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/09-poe-minutes.html phila
13:29:24 <michaelS> simonstey: How does this differ from constraints
13:30:20 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:30:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/09-poe-minutes.html phila
13:30:20 <michaelS> renato: this is not about constraints but provides information about the policy document
13:30:36 <victor> q+
13:31:01 <victor> Just to say that I would also add authorship and license itself.
13:31:33 <simonstey> ack si
13:31:48 <phila> ack b
13:32:22 <victor> q-
13:32:35 <michaelS> benws: new topic: wants to see constraints on constraints examples
13:32:46 <michaelS> renato: let's put it on the agenda for the next call
13:33:05 <James> Thanks
13:33:06 <michaelS> renato: next call next week
13:33:08 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:33:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/09-poe-minutes.html phila
13:33:10 <michaelS> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:33:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/09-poe-minutes.html michaelS
13:34:57 <Serena> Serena has left #poe
14:26:33 <phila> phila has joined #poe
15:57:46 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe
16:05:34 <phila> phila has joined #poe
16:38:49 <ivan> ivan has joined #poe
18:29:51 <ivan> ivan has joined #poe