Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

<renato> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170220

last week's minutes

No objections were raised

benws_: minutes are approved

<renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/

deliverables

deliverables - Information Model

http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/

benws_: this is a technical document - it starts talking about things which are not relevant for the model, e.g. policy conflicts
... hard to understand and read. How could we order the document better, put important things at the top
... second issue: policy conflict.
... unstand what it aims at. But the examples shown there don't raise a conflict by his view.

renato: the reason for the conflict is: "use" is a wider term than "print"

benws_: what about a policy with "use" and a high payment and a "print" action only and a cheap payment?

renato: this example shows a conflict between permission and prohibition in the policies contradicting each other.
... it is about what takes precedence: permission or prohibition

ivan: refered to what benws_ said: wouldn't it be better to call this "precedence" than "conflict" ?

<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/76

renato: (searching the POE issue list on Github) this was covered by issue 76
... the "conflict" is in fact more about a strategy to solve conflicting things.

ivan: explained formalities: this action is issuing an updated version of an existing document

<renato> Proposal: Publish new working draft of "ODRL Information Model" https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/

<ivan> +1

<renato> +1

+1

<benws_> +1

<Sabrina> +1

<simonstey> 0

<victor> +1

simonstey: explained his abstaining: there are still some open issue, e.g. regarding unclear relations

renato: the Information Model is based on UML, not on OWL
... and simonstey discussed some details - agreed this needs further review

ivan: supported the view "this is not the final draft", things may still be modified.

<renato> Last published on 21 July 2016

ivan: shares simon's view that XML is only an implementation of the Information Model and not driving it.

benws_: who is using ODRL with which format?

renato: AP uses XML and also Thomson Reuters, David Compton said XML is used

<simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2016/04/25-poe-minutes

benws_: would be in favour of an RDF-based canonical specification

<simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-poe-minutes

benws_: we should look at that again after having published this draft

<benws_> +1

ivan: saw no problem to have XML implementations and its specific syntax, but this must not drive the information model

renato: the Information Model is based on UML and not on XML!!

ivan: then the conflict is: UML model vs RDF model. These models cannot be mixed. And UML is not even mentioned anywhere in the Information Model document

RESOLUTION: Publish new working draft of "ODRL Information Model" https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/

deliverables - Vocabulary Document

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

renato: a few small updates were done - but some issues are still open, e.g. 101
... the ontology was improved.

benws_: discussion about normative vs non-normative
... phila had proposed to have only a few normative terms

<ivan> +1 to Ben

benws_: in the current version of the document we have no explicit "normative" terms and many non-normative terms

renato: agreed to apply this change in a future version

benws_: what are the criteria for making something normative

renato: based on statistics from usages of ODRL

ivan: renato's argument is very pragmatic - does not support it.
... the normative terms should build a scaffolding and the non-normative terms may be added

benws_: in the Action terms use and transfer should be normative

renato: that's another way to find the normative terms.

ivan: an distinction should be "core" and "additional" terms - this should be based on the information model

<renato> Proposal: Publish new working draft of "ODRL Vocabulary & Expression" https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/

<ivan> +1

<renato> +1

<Sabrina> +1

<benws_> +1

<simonstey> +1

+1

<victor> +1

RESOLUTION: Publish new working draft of "ODRL Vocabulary & Expression" https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/

<simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/

<simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2016/11/07-poe-minutes#resolution02

deliverables - Use Case & Requirements

simonstey: gave an overview: went over UC and checked relationships to Requirements - edited some of them
... requirements which are already covered where "retired" - by strikthrough

victor: asked: how long will the Wiki page with use cases exist?

ivan: forever - but it will be frozen at the end of the standardization work

simonstey: did some small edits in the UC Wiki doc to fix errors

<renato> Proposal: Publish new working draft of "POE Use Cases and Requirements" https://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/

<simonstey> +1

<renato> +1

<Sabrina> +1

<benws_> +1

<ivan> +1

+1

<victor> +1 (again, I have not read it since long, but I rely on future changes to improve possibles areas)

RESOLUTION: Publish new working draft of "POE Use Cases and Requirements" https://w3c.github.io/poe/ucr/

benws_: three new drafts is a real progress

renato: what needs to be done to publish the document ?

ivan: the document have to be checked against the W3C publishing rules

<ivan> https://www.w3.org/pubrules/

ivan and simonstey discussed how to validated documents against the pub rules

ivan: all three drafts should be checked by this rule checking system

<simonstey> action-20

<trackbot> action-20 -- Benedict Whittam Smith to Provide a list of roles that appear e.g. contracting party, acknowledging party -- due 2016-08-08 -- OPEN

<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/20

Other business - actions

London face-to-face

renato: the ODRL Community will be invited as observers

benws_: Thomson Reuters will host the meeting