See also: IRC log
<renato> Plenty of snow - just the 40 degree heat melts it on entry to our atmosphere :-)
<scribe> scribe: simonstey
<scribe> chair: renato
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2017/02/06-poe-minutes.html
renato: hearing no objections -> minutes approved
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
<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=