12:26:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:26:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/23-poe-irc
12:26:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:26:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:26:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
12:26:35 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:26:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:26:36 <trackbot> Date: 23 January 2017
12:26:40 <renato> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:26:59 <renato> Chair: Ben
12:27:06 <renato> Regrets: Sabrina, Victor
12:27:12 <renato> present+ renato
12:28:18 <phila> present+
12:28:23 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
12:29:00 <ivan> present+
12:29:33 <Serena> Serena has joined #poe
12:29:52 <simonstey> present+
12:30:33 <benws2> present+
12:30:44 <phila> scribe: Phil
12:30:48 <phila> scribeNick: phila
12:31:19 <renato> Thanks ;-)
12:31:52 <phila> Topic: Last Week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2017/01/16-poe-minutes.html
12:32:08 <smyles> smyles has joined #poe
12:32:25 <Serena> present+
12:33:17 <smyles> present+
12:34:08 <CarolineB> CarolineB has joined #poe
12:34:13 <michaelS> present+ michaelS
12:34:18 <phila> benws2: Any objections?
12:34:31 <phila> RESOLUTION: Last week's minutes accepted
12:34:37 <Brian_Ulicny> Brian_Ulicny has joined #poe
12:34:42 <Brian_Ulicny> present+
12:34:51 <phila> Topic: Constraints
12:35:10 <renato> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2017Jan/0012.html
12:35:13 <phila> benws2: renato Wouldyou like to introduce your solution to complex constraints and how that extendes to extended relations
12:35:22 <CarolineB> present+ CarolineB
12:35:37 <phila> renato: Idea is that constraints on constraints work by allowing L and R operand to be existing constraint objects
12:35:50 <phila> ... This is supported in our 3 syntaxws
12:35:55 <phila> ... use XOR or AND
12:36:10 <phila> ... Create the 2 constraints and then say XOR between C1 and C2
12:36:24 <phila> ... That is then closely related to extended relations
12:36:50 <phila> ... If we only constrained constraints... we already have L&R operands. Doesn't fit with duties
12:37:19 <benws2> q?
12:37:47 <phila> renato: TNhe proposal is not to support extended relations for duties as it doesan't have the same functions as constraints
12:37:59 <phila> ... where we have L & R operands. We don't have tht for duties
12:38:17 <phila> ... So if we only limit ERs to Constraints then we're OK
12:38:26 <phila> ... The use case for this was a duty that had 2 constraints
12:38:32 <phila> ... We'll support this.
12:38:35 <benws2> q?
12:38:43 <simonstey> +q
12:38:57 <phila> benws2: The 1st question - would anyone suffer if ER were no longer applicable to duties?
12:39:04 <phila> ack simonstey
12:39:37 <phila> simonstey: Regarding the use case, there's the famous example of breaking the law, you can choose whether you want to pay or go to gaol, so you have 2 ways to act
12:40:13 <phila> simonstey: But another question...
12:40:34 <phila> ... in the e-mail, renato, you said ... AIUI, each L & R operand would be a constraint object
12:40:54 <phila> ... So we might have dateTime for Left Op, and then ...
12:41:02 <phila> ... So end of 2016, OR end of 2017
12:41:20 <phila> ... Or can we only bundle constraints... (scribe lost detail)
12:41:29 <phila> renato: At the constraint level, the 2 objects would be constraints
12:41:56 <phila> simonstey: I don't see why, without doing the changes, I think legacy ODRL, I think those extended relations are also easy?
12:42:13 <smyles> q+
12:42:16 <phila> ... I don't see how the changes affect on a constraint level
12:42:58 <phila> renato: I think before we had explicit left operand, where the LO was an actual constraint, say, 'day time' then it seemed harder to model the ERs between 2 separate constraints.
12:43:18 <phila> ... Now it's clear that we have LO and RO, and they can be constraint objects, it seems clearer
12:43:28 <phila> simonstey: I'd have C1 less than C2...
12:43:41 <phila> [Agreement]
12:43:52 <phila> benws2: TO summarise...
12:44:00 <phila> ... The model doesn't change, just the syntax?
12:44:22 <phila> renato: Pretty much. There are no major changes. maybe a bit of narrative updatwe for how to use them. But there's no structural change to the model
12:44:34 <phila> ... As I replied to Stuart, we may have processing rules for XML
12:44:41 <phila> benws2: No impact on expressivity?
12:44:52 <phila> simonstey: You can say more things
12:45:09 <phila> ... AND brings no additional expressivity, but OR and XOR do
12:45:30 <phila> benws2: I meant compared with the old model
12:45:38 <phila> simonstey: Hopefully only the extended expressivity.
12:45:45 <phila> simonstey: It's really just the same thing.
12:45:51 <phila> q?
12:46:00 <phila> ack smyles
12:46:18 <phila> smyles: I agree that the proposed solution works, and it does make the model more powerful
12:46:30 <phila> ... I just think we'll have to work through the details of the syntax
12:46:40 <phila> ... You need a slightly more powerful processing model than we did for ODRL 2.1
12:46:46 <phila> ... Otherwise I think it works.
12:46:57 <phila> benws2: On the concept of Cs on Cs...
12:47:02 <simonstey> +q
12:47:05 <benws2>  q?
12:47:10 <michaelS> q+
12:47:17 <phila> ack simonstey
12:47:24 <phila> simonstey: The ERs are fine and understandable
12:47:45 <phila> ... what this depends on... it's tricky. There are many different ways to look at it.
12:47:56 <phila> ... Does depend have a logical implication?
12:48:18 <phila> ... If A depends on B then can't be true if B is false, but that doesn't imply any temporal order
12:48:41 <phila> ... And then there is this temporal dependency: first X has to be true, then y has to be true - and that's not the same.
12:48:59 <phila> ... Depending how we define our ERs could extend to the situation where you have a nested XOR on one side
12:49:18 <phila> ... and this depends on another giant construct, both referring to the same Cs in a loop
12:49:47 <phila> ... When do you want to check, how long do you have to wait?
12:49:56 <phila> ... Many differnet things to consider and be aware of.
12:50:02 <phila> benws2: Are you optimistic?
12:50:12 <phila> simonstey: Optimistic with ERs, but not the dependencies
12:50:12 <renato> q+
12:50:32 <phila> ... We have to be super clear on how Cs that depend on each other have to be validated and processed.
12:50:49 <phila> ... Maybe we have to make it impossible to point to certain...
12:51:30 <phila> benws2: I think the way to progress, is to generate some cases that you can bring back to the group
12:51:48 <phila> action simonstey to generate some use cases the show problems with dependencies
12:51:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Generate some use cases the show problems with dependencies [on Simon Steyskal - due 2017-01-30].
12:52:12 <phila> benws2: Does that capture what you wanted to do?
12:52:30 <benws2> q?
12:52:38 <phila> simonstey: There are many different aspects. Is this feasible, anda then describe it in a bullet proof way
12:52:44 <phila> q+ to talk about test suites (again)
12:52:49 <phila> ack michaelS
12:53:04 <phila> michaelS: I sent a comment earlier today... it goers close to what Simon has outlined.
12:53:14 <simonstey> q+
12:53:17 <phila> ... Maybe we can trim it down to a sequence
12:53:33 <phila> ... Then I notice that renato says something like that was defined for ODRL1 but then taken out.
12:53:43 <phila> ... My basic concern is that it gets too complex.
12:54:05 <phila> ... Could there be a chain of such dependencies... C1 on C2 on C3 etc.
12:54:17 <phila> ... I'd like to trim it down to things that are widely requested
12:54:29 <phila> benws2: So could you collaborate with Simon on some cases?
12:54:30 <benws2> q?
12:54:32 <phila> michaelS: Yes
12:54:34 <phila> ack r
12:54:56 <phila> renato: I agree with both the previous points. It can get complicated, that's why we took it out.
12:55:32 <phila> ... What we could do... we could state that C1 and C2 should be atomic constraints, i.e. not part of another expression, so you always havea a simple operation
12:55:42 <phila> ... So I think we should include that in the processing model
12:55:57 <phila> renato: Happy for others to come up with better wording of course.
12:56:19 <phila> ... And the other thing... the other option is not to support Cs on Cs and say it's too hard and will cause problems in the future.
12:56:44 <phila> benws2: Just on Cs on Cs, we've talked about it a lot, which is worrying, but there are some solid use cases so it's clearly needed.
12:57:08 <benws2> q?
12:57:09 <phila> ... We do have to respond to constraints that are more complex than the model currently supports. Embargo being a simple case in point
12:57:30 <phila> renato: Sure this proposal forCs on Cs we should stipulate that C1 nad C2 should be atomic
12:57:32 <simonstey> precedes/succeeds ?
12:57:34 <phila> ack me
12:57:34 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about test suites (again)
12:59:06 <phila> phila: Exhorts Simon and Michael to think in terms of test data when coming up with these examples
12:59:41 <phila> simonstey: Seems reasonable. Maybe we can work out a way that those sequential Cs could work. The current version wouldn't work in long chains
13:00:14 <phila> ... You need to know if it;s the same sequence, or a separate sequence, I don't see how this works without URIs
13:00:39 <phila> ... There may be a C that precedes another C etc.
13:00:49 <benws2> q?
13:00:55 <benws2> ack s
13:00:56 <simonstey> ack simonstey
13:01:07 <phila> benws2: Any more to say on constraints?
13:01:13 <phila> [Silence]
13:01:16 <benws2> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables
13:01:18 <phila> Topic: Deliverables
13:01:29 <phila> renato: An update..
13:01:39 <phila> ... The vocab and model have been updated in the EDs
13:01:44 <phila> ... Less than a day ago.
13:01:50 <renato>  https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues
13:01:56 <phila> ... All current issues, including those ones we are talking about today...
13:02:02 <phila> ... Most are now marked to be closed
13:02:06 <phila> ... With a Red tag
13:02:29 <phila> ... That will cover the approved requirements, the multiple actions and parties...
13:02:57 <phila> ... So I think the current state of the 23 TR docs to be - after we make the changes after today, I think the docs will be ready to be published as next iterations
13:03:04 <phila> ... Ideally we can vote next Monday
13:03:25 <phila> ... Depending whether Simon and Michael's use cases raise any other issues along the way,
13:03:30 <phila> benws2: OK
13:03:54 <phila> renato: What that means for the rest of the WG is: please read the current 2 specs. You can follow through the issues, or just read the drafts
13:04:06 <phila> renato: Both docs include change logs
13:04:38 <phila> ... Please read through and raise any issues, especially substantive ones.
13:04:55 <phila> ... We need to get the wide reviews so ideally we're close to having all the functional detail done
13:05:22 <phila> benws2: Are we going to update the UCR?
13:05:34 <phila> renato: Yes, but it doesn't have to be simultaneous
13:06:45 <ivan> +1 to phil
13:07:01 <phila> phila: No rules on this, but if it is only a week before UCR is ready, then it makes a better PR story if they all go out together
13:07:25 <phila> benws2: OK, can my fellow UCR editors get the doc done in 2 weeks?
13:07:43 <renato> "a hard fortnight" ;-)
13:07:52 <phila> [General discussion about getting the UCR doc updated]
13:08:01 <phila> benws2: Anything else under deliverables?
13:08:11 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables
13:08:17 <phila> renato: The list of who we're going to seek wide review from
13:08:35 <phila> ... More names/organisations would be good there
13:08:50 <benws2> q?
13:09:51 <phila> action: phila to find example of wide review e-mail text
13:09:51 <trackbot> Created ACTION-40 - Find example of wide review e-mail text [on Phil Archer - due 2017-01-30].
13:10:05 <phila> ivan: There are some WGs that have their own self-testing questionnaire
13:10:11 <phila> ... Privacy I think has that
13:10:18 <phila> phila: Yes, i18n does too
13:10:35 <phila> ivan: So it might be worth going through that immediately after publication.
13:10:49 <phila> ... Privacy folks will ask you to go through that before they look at it
13:11:18 <ivan> http://gregnorc.github.io/ping-privacy-questions/
13:11:31 <ivan> https://w3ctag.github.io/security-questionnaire/
13:11:47 <ivan> https://www.w3.org/International/techniques/developing-specs?collapse
13:12:20 <simonstey> +q
13:12:22 <phila> phila: I don't think this WG is relevant to a11y?
13:12:34 <phila> ivan: Probably not, but in the past they have commented on the spec itself.
13:14:30 <phila> [Phil and Ivan discuss a11y needs]
13:14:46 <phila> action: phila Look into accessible SVG version  of the model diagram
13:14:46 <trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Look into accessible svg version  of the model diagram [on Phil Archer - due 2017-01-30].
13:15:46 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/
13:16:03 <phila> simonstey: I can remember when we had a more tedious method of checking docs through a11y
13:16:18 <phila> ... If you pass those guidelines then you could go.
13:16:34 <phila> -> https://www.w3.org/pubrules/ PubRules
13:16:47 <phila> ivan: I don't think PubRules does a11y atthe moment
13:17:12 <phila> simonstey: I can imagine that for our vocab to be accessible, something to complain about is certain concepts may not be full described
13:17:44 <phila> ivan: I think having a description for each terms is a GOOD THING
13:17:48 <benws2> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open
13:17:58 <phila> s/GOOD THING/good thing/
13:18:39 <phila> benws2: Reads through the open issues, noting his own...
13:19:07 <phila> ... Unit of count. I remember having a discussion about this. I don't think Good Relations provided that support.
13:19:46 <Serena> *you mean Sabrina I guess :)*
13:19:52 <phila> simonstey: I know Sabrina is busy this week
13:20:18 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:20:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/23-poe-minutes.html phila
13:20:46 <phila> close action-34
13:20:46 <trackbot> Closed action-34.
13:21:00 <phila> benws2: I think we can close action-36
13:21:04 <phila> close action-36
13:21:04 <trackbot> Closed action-36.
13:21:16 <phila> benws2: We have decided on London...
13:21:23 <phila> close action-37
13:21:23 <trackbot> Closed action-37.
13:21:38 <phila> benws2: Any more to say on actions?
13:21:44 <phila> Topic: London F2F
13:22:10 <phila> renato: At this stage it's about logistics. We'll work on the agenda nearer the time but dates and venues are decided.
13:22:22 <phila> benws2: I'll provide recommended hotels etc.
13:22:46 <phila> q+
13:22:52 <phila> ack simonstey
13:23:04 <phila> Topic: BYTE
13:23:06 <phila> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-comments/2017Jan/0002.html
13:23:54 <simonstey> +q
13:24:26 <simonstey> ack phila
13:25:13 <phila> benws2: Might be worth pinging Victor directly
13:25:25 <phila> .. ANd I did this translation some time aho
13:25:48 <phila> simonstey: I'm in Dalicc - we're responsible for the processing, not the modelling
13:26:06 <phila> ... They tried to read the entire licence and see whether there were pieces missing
13:26:17 <phila> ... to represent the whole licence is complicated
13:26:41 <phila> ack simonstey
13:26:48 <renato> My response: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-comments/2017Jan/0003.html
13:27:28 <phila> simonstey: I had a meeting with a legal expert . They're trying to compare ccBy with other open licences and then we can some up with a way to crrectly represent them.
13:27:30 <renato> Duties are not "correctly" modelled...
13:28:16 <benws2>  q?
13:28:38 <phila> phila: Mentions the work at the EU data Portal where many licences have been compared
13:28:47 <phila> simonstey: Not sure that listing all the actions is the right approach.
13:28:56 <phila> benws2: Wraps up
13:29:07 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:29:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/23-poe-minutes.html phila
13:29:09 <Serena> Serena has left #poe
14:27:58 <phila_> phila_ has joined #poe
14:28:51 <phila_> phila_ has joined #poe
14:31:16 <benws> benws has joined #poe
14:37:29 <phila_> phila_ has joined #poe
14:38:07 <phila__> phila__ has joined #poe
14:49:14 <ivan> ivan has joined #poe
15:42:14 <phila__> phila__ has joined #poe
15:42:40 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe