W3C

Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

13 Feb 2017

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
renato, ivan, scribe, phila, michaelS, victor, Sabrina, CarolineB
Regrets
Serena, Stuart, Ben, Brian
Chair
renato
Scribe
simonstey

Contents


<renato> Plenty of snow - just the 40 degree heat melts it on entry to our atmosphere :-)

<scribe> scribe: simonstey

<scribe> chair: renato

approval of last week's minutes

<renato> https://www.w3.org/2017/02/06-poe-minutes.html

renato: hearing no objections -> minutes approved

2 rec track documents

renato: comments from simonstey regarding introduction of attributes

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

renato: another issue discussed last week was json-ld context
... got some advise/comments from gregg kellogg
... has anyone any further questions/comments regarding the info model?

<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/105

renato: we plan to publish both documents as WD

<phila> simonstey: There are issues in the PDF that are implementation specific, they don't provide general info

<renato> simon: undefined actions section - http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#undefined

<renato> simon: what is an undefined action? too vague?

<renato> ...implementation specific

renato: this feature was added way back
... when ODRL was used more in closed environments, rather than open world scenarios
... I propose to mark it as "at risk"

phila: the phrase "at risk" has a specific conotation
... I would mark it as issue

<phila> Sounds sensible to me

<phila> phila: Maybe also add a sentence to the Status of the Document

<renato> Proposal: mark section 3.1.4 as an issue - the feature maybe removed in future version

+1

<phila> +1

<ivan> +1

<Sabrina> +1

<michaelS> +1

<victor> +1

RESOLUTION: mark section 3.1.4 as an issue - the feature maybe removed in future version

renato: anyone has any other questions/comments reg. the info model?

phila: is that the only open issue?

renato: yes, other than that only editorial ones left

vocab document

<renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/ODRL22.jsonld

renato: we now know how a json-ld context should actually look like
... the only other issues for the vocab (apart from the json-ld) are a few little ones
... 1) issue 101

<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/101

renato: there are 4 actions that all end with "to an audience"
... I would like to propose removing the phrase "to an audience" from all 4

michaelS: adding this phrase was highly recommended by a big german law firm back then
... there's a difference between "playing" for a small audience or a big one

renato: you might be giving away too much permission by having this phrase
... plus, we won't be able to have a "private" use version of play

michaelS: what would be a use case for that?

renato: [explaining a use case]

michaelS: maybe we need a new action?
... the assignee isn't necessarily the beneficiary of a permission
... we could require the definition of a recipient

renato: if you explicitly mention "to an audience", it implies that you have the right to publicly play it to an audience

michaelS: there should be a distinction between private&public use

renato: most of the action can only be performed by the assignee
... maybe a profile could implement such a feature

michaelS: looking at the old version of the vocab, present is defined as parent action of display
... presenting something implies (imo) presenting to someone
... rather than only to yourself

phila: there's def. a distinction between presenting something to yourself and presenting something to a stadium

<renato> Proposal: remove "to an audience" from Present terms, display, play, text2speech

phila: (a stadium with people in it)

+1

<Sabrina> +1

<ivan> 0

<renato> +1

<CarolineB> +1

<michaelS> +1

RESOLUTION: remove "to an audience" from Present terms, display, play, text2speech

+q

<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/103

<michaelS> The actions present, display, play and textToSpeech should include a note requiring to add a receipient party as a private or open audience.

simonstey: mentions different semantics of action "stream" for data community
... streaming data vs streaming movies/audio/...

<renato> proposal: Add "stream" to action vocab - broad definition - not as a narrower term of Present

<Sabrina> +1

<CarolineB> +1

<renato> +1

0

<ivan> +1

<michaelS> 0

<phila> +1 although, again, I don't like enumerated lists in a vocab

renato: will work on the specific def. of stream

RESOLUTION: Add "stream" to action vocab - broad definition - not as a narrower term of Present

+1 to phil's comment

<victor> 0

<michaelS> q

victor: I opened a new issue few minutes ago
... the ontology isn't OWL-DL

<renato> Victor's issue: https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/106

victor: by removing rdfs:range we could make it OWL-DL
... I could enrich this issue and propose changes

<ivan> yes

victor: the specs can still change after next week right?

renato: you bet

phila: just for clarification -> the diagrams in both vocabs are slightly different.. why's that?

renato: [explains diff.]

phila: e.g., "status" in constraints isn't part of the figure in the vocab spec.. why?
... maybe worth considering adding an explanatory sentence to the figure in the vocab
... basically reiterating what you just said renatio

michaelS: status is "non-normative" what does that mean?
... what's the difference in relevance?
... we have two main actions -> use & transfer
... where transfer now seems to be non-normative

renato: based on the implementation survey we did last year, we derived this distinction
... we have to have a number of implementations that implement the whole spec

michaelS: my concern is that someone who's not familiar with the W3C process might be inclined to reinterpret "non-normative" terms

phila: the distinction between normative<->non-normative might have to be recast
... and we may want to consider change that to core/extension
... will give both specs a more thorough readthrough until next week

<CarolineB> *me - sorry have to go now

[discussing generalities]

ivan: instead of discussing generalities, the question is whether there are at least two different groups that implement e.g. display
... if this can be proven, there is no point in not having it normative
... at this point we could also have certain terms being "at risk"
... [relevant for CR]

michaelS: I would like to have an equal opportunity for all actions, as people may tend to avoid actions that are denoted as being "non-normative"

renato: plan for next week -> vote on both documents
... AOB=

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. mark section 3.1.4 as an issue - the feature maybe removed in future version
  2. remove "to an audience" from Present terms, display, play, text2speech
  3. Add "stream" to action vocab - broad definition - not as a narrower term of Present
[End of minutes]