Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
10 April 2017
benws: last week's minutes
Resolved: Last week's minutes at https://www.w3.org/2017/04/03-poe-minutes approved
benws: hearing no objections - approved!
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Deliverables
renato: the only thing we are really waiting for is horizontal review
… which brian's doing
benws: haven't heard back from him
<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Wide+Review%22
renato: I don't think we've sent out any other wide review requests though
benws: anything we want to discuss reg. already received feedback?
<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/123
renato: I tagged related issues with "Wide Review"
… there's an existing use case for that (uc24)
benws: if we include that term, and at the time the implementation reports come in noone implements it -> do we have to exclude it?
phila: short answer, yes
… such terms can be flagged as features "at risk"
… which is relevant for going to CR
phila: we could also ask them to point us to others using that term
renato: synchronize is becoming more and more relevant for the music industry
<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Needs+WG+Decision%22
renato: I would like to have an ODRL profile for the music industry in the future
<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/122
<renato> simon: spec says: to get a permission you must fufill duty
<renato> ... but some actions are not applicable..such as "uninstall"
<renato> ...duty does not specify when to perform the duty
<renato> ... you should agree beforehand when to perform the duty
michaelS: having been involved in these discussions, my thinking is -> on the commercial level you e.g. receive a good and have a due that to pay its price
… under the assumption that the price will be paid
… so that's a real use case
<victor> "must be satisfied" is time neutral, namely, it can refer to both a future and a past action.
[discussing details on duties and their satisfiability]
<renato> simon: the permission is only valid only after the duty is fulfilled
<renato> simon: suggestion: if there is not specific time in a constraint, the semantics are you agree to delete the asset, then the permission is valid
<renato> ... change the semantics of the vocab term (eg "has agreed to delete")
benws: another approach would be to say that as long as a duty doesn't have a temporal constraint attached
<renato> ben: or add "..unless the duty constraint has a temporal conditions"
benws: you can only agree to do respective duty
<renato> simon: you fulfil the duty if you agree what the duty says
<renato> simon: ..indicate a requirements that is *agreed* to be satisfied
<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/22
benws: moving on to inheritance and overriden entities
renato: simonstey raised this issue
… proposing to remove "inheritRelation" from the core model
<victor> I have never used inheritance relations and have no opinion on that.
smyles: I'm fine with it being removed.. I've never seen a pratical use of it anyway
michaelS: agreed
renato: we'll then remove it
Resolved: remove odrl:inheritRelation from ODRL
victor: do we plan to include SHACL shapes to the ODRL ontology?
phila: although you can have valid/invalid policies, it's not a good thing to be dependend on other WG
ivan: I haven't gotten any invites for a call tmrw
victor: same time as today?
<victor> 12.30 GMT then?
ivan: should work for me
simonstey: +1
<victor> +1
ivan: but we don't have a Webex set up either
ivan: I'll set one up and notify the group
benws: victor and myself had a call last week
… we tried to indentify what ODRL profiles actually want to be
… it's important to emphasize that ODRL policies do not replace actual contracts
phila: yes, that's very important stuff
… we need to be both careful and confident at the same time
benws: the best practices document will talk about challenges of using ODRL for expressing e.g. licenses
… it will only use fragments of licenses
phila: so you probably need ficticious licenses for examples
<renato> CC-BY !
phila: I want to have CC-BY
<renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#provenace
<victor> You may want to check this:
<victor> http://purl.oclc.org/NET/rdflicense/cc-by2.0.ttl
benws: probably just talking about adding PROV-O concepts
<victor> By comparison, you may want to use the CreativeCommons version, which can obtained as RDFa at the official URI.
phila: thanks for the example, I wouldn't include all of the license text though
… maybe also have something in the title that explicitly states that this is Victor's interpretation of CC-BY
<victor> You may want to see the Turtle extracted by the W3C RDF distiller of the same license by the original CreativeCommons publishers if you click here: https://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/extract?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Flicenses%2Fby%2F2.0&format=turtle&rdfagraph=output&vocab_expansion=false&rdfa_lite=false&embedded_rdf=true&space_preserve=true&vocab_cache=true&vocab_cache_report=false&vocab_cache_refresh=false
renato: [mentions smart contracts in that context]
<victor> UK's Open Government Licenses are also machine-readable
<michaelS> -1
<CarolineB> +1
<phila> PROPOSED: Move meeting back an hour
benws: should we have a quick strawpoll regarding meeting time?
<smyles> +0
<phila> 0 (I don't mind)
0
+1
<victor> 0 (I don't mind)
benws: discuss again enxt week
<renato> PROPOSAL: not accepted (for now)