benws17: Any objection to last week's minutes?
NOTUC
Resolved: Minutes of 6 March approved
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables
renato: That page lists wide review recipients so far
… Most are done. A couple still to do
renato: Last week or so, someone said they'd contact the AC review members who said they'd support the WG
benws17: Yes, I did, I'll do that in the comings days.
renato: It's on track. Phil has some to do
phila: Red faced. Have done one just now, will complete today
renato: For horizontal review
phila: Will handle a11y as promised
renato: They'll look at a11y of the spec itself
<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/114
renato: There's a GH issue for this. There are some places where we used bold cf strong, so I have a GH job for that
… And I have a URL for a checker
… SO we can do that for the 2 main specs
… Next on the list is i18n
… Brian was tasked to do that and did send a mail to the lis
… He sent a PDF attachment
<renato> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-wg/2017Mar/0009.html
renato: The PDF there is where he tried to click the checkboxes relevant to our area
… He got N/A for a number of them
… Some aren't checked. Not sure what that means
benws17: I can loop back with Brain later
<renato> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-comments/2017Mar/0005.html
renato: Next horizontal review was security. I sent the mail
… I answered most of their questions with 'no.'
… Except that we do have a p and s section
… No response as yet
renato: Next was privacy.
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Privacy_Considerations
renato: I have a draft wiki page answering the questions
… I'll send that to the privacy IG
… They have 13 questions.
… We don't currently have a Privacy considerations section but I think we should have.
… I've suggested how the section could be worded
… This is just to make implementers aware of the issue
renato: I think we can make it clear that the text will be there. The other questions are mostly answered with no.
… No 6 asks if data could be faked. Well, yes it can, so you have to trust the parties involved but that's out of scope for us.
benws17: It's a genuine issue - for others to solve.
renato: I can send that off to the privacy IG as with the security folks
benws17: Is simonstey here?
<benws17> Simon - are you out there? Are you calling in?
benws17: Formal semantics and Best Practices
<benws17> Can you call in and talk to the formal semantics?
benws17: I'll talk about the best practices. I'm going to start work on it soon.
… I've been working on profiles for specific industries, esp. financial markets
<renato> ODRL Best Practices: http://w3c.github.io/poe/bp/
benws17: Those licences are complex
benws17: They push the expressivity of ODRL quite hard
… Victor will, I hope, include some egs from standard licences and how to express those.
… What we need are more examples
… I'll write to the CG and ask for these.
benws17: We need feedback from the community about whether these are indeed BPs
<simonstey_> simonstey_: we started to go through other FS notes
benws17: I'd expect to start working on that next week
benws17: I'll try and hook up with victor
phila: So the BP doc will include things like CC-BY?
benws17: Yes, I hope Victor will provide that.
<simonstey_> simonstey_: I raised/reopened some issues regarding the infomodel
benws17: The doc isn't about those licences, it's about how you express the issues that come up in those licences
renato: Paul Jessop is down as a co-editor, but we've not heard from him since Lisbon.
… I can drop him an e-mail to see if he's still interested.
benws17: Please cc me
… he may have examples from music and film
<simonstey_> simonstey_: we'll have a first draft of the formal semantics note for our next f2f meeting
renato: I think James B might also be worth asking
<renato> thanks simon!
CarolineB: If he's allowed to, memebrship wise
phila: Yes, Catapult has lapsed (and he's left anyway) but don't that let that stop us asking James
<CarolineB> *me he could com ein under our membership?
benws17: Contracting parties often come up in agreements
renato: That's in the GH repo as an issue
benws17: I think we have versioning covered but I guess I should write some use cases to make sure
… Victor did provide an eg
… but it doesn't have the same semantics
<renato> Party roles (action 20) https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/110
benws17: We do need a kind of regulatory policy
renato: I think Sabrina has proposed a regulation policy type
<simonstey_> simonstey_: we are working on representing the gdpr in ODRL
<simonstey_> ... and as such derive req for regulatory policy type
renato: 20, 23, 25, 28 and 38 can all be closed in tracker
close action-20
<trackbot> Closed action-20.
close action-23
<trackbot> Closed action-23.
close action-25
<trackbot> Closed action-25.
close action-28
<trackbot> Closed action-28.
close action-38
<trackbot> Closed action-38.
close action-41
<trackbot> Closed action-41.
benws17: We need to know who's coming, details, hotels etc.
renato: There's the logistics etc.
phila: We need wi-fi for remote participation
phila: Is TR offering tea and coffee
phila: There's no obligation to provide lunch but it's nice if you do.
benws17: I assume we'll provide sandwiches
<renato> https://iptc.org/events/spring-meeting-2017/
phila: I'm doping a talk organised by Bill K on the Wednesday
michaelS: IPTC?
phila: Sounds right
benws17: And there's a thing on Monday that I'm at
… at the BBC
<michaelS> https://iptc.org/events/spring-meeting-2017/
benws17: Lots of interesting people in London that week, so how big will the room need to be.
… 15 people?
renato: I think that'll be pushing it. In Lisbon we had about 8
… A room that holds 10 will be enough
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:London2017
phila: It's not unreasonable to insist that people declare whether they're going to be there or not.
[None]
renato: So what is next week's agenda?
<simonstey_> simonstey_: everyone has a look at open issues & reads through the spec?
<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues
phila: Asks about issues open at the moment
renato: The plan is that the open issues will be closed during the F2F
phila: So you're not planning to go to CR until after F2F?
renato: That's the plan
<simonstey_> simonstey_: I would object to this
benws17: I think it will be 2 weeks before BP doc is ready for discussion
<simonstey_> ... that is, going to CR before f2F
benws17: Next week cold be a short 15 min call
… Just to recap
<benws17> CR after F2F :)
benws17: Anything else?
[Nope]