Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference -- 24 Apr 2017

<renato> Chair: renato

<renato> Approve minutes: https://www.w3.org/2017/04/10-poe-minutes

<simonstey> scribe: Brian_Ulicny

Approve last week's minutes?

<ivan> scribenick: Brian_Ulicny

<michaelS> scibe: Brian_Ulicny

Approved.

Will we meet next week (May Day)? Decision is to not meet next week.

Resoled: No meeting May 1, 2017.

Resolved.

No feedback received from wide review in the last period.

<renato> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2017AprJun/0002.html

Horizontal reviews

Horizontal review feedback from privacy group.

Not clear what the issues are. Need to circle back to this group to understand.

Ivan: "this is not about keystroke logging, so seems safe to answer no".

Renato: "OK, I will send that response to privacy group and report back".

Internationalization?

Brian: I was not sure if we were confining ourselves to UTF-8.

Ivan: Yes, we should say UTF-8.
... Where do these issues arise?

Renato: Dublic Core values.

Perhaps.

Brian: URIs or IRIs?
... I only filled out the required field.

fields.

Ivan: the problem is things like bi-directional text: arabic text with embedded Latin characters. The problem is you can't encode this in JSON.
... "not sure how the internationalization group handles this these days"
... "our textual data is metadata. Maybe we can get away with ignoring this. This may be the only area where there is an issue."
... "They were working on a general approach to this in JSON."
... "The IRI issue is another one. We are essentially an RDF vocabulary. The RDF spec very clearly refers to IRIs, not URIs. Since this is our serialization, we should stick with that. We should say that we use IRIs everywhere."

Renato: "So let's just substitute IRI for every instance of URI in the spec."
... "So we should be done with internationalization. Brian, please go over and update based on this discussion and send again."
... "So due date for all feedback is April 30."
... "So that's it for Internationalization."

<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Needs+WG+Decision%22

Github issues

<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/117

Renato: "How to characterize 'Complex Constraints'"

<simonstey> sounds good to me

Renato: "We are going to rename 'Complex Constraints' as 'Compound Constraints' (cf. 'Atomic Constraints')"
... "Everyone okay with that?"

<michaelS> +1

Silence = agreement.

So 'complex constraints' now 'compound constraints'

<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/46

Next issue: in JSON-LD, what does the context file look like?

We've got one context ld file.

<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/vocab/ODRL22.jsonld

<simonstey> +q

This file contains all the terms in our ontology. Stuart moved this from his Dropbox.

<simonstey> "action": "odrl:play",

Simon: "should we maintain the odrl namespace in this example"
... "We need to be consistent"
... "The context file should be more prominent."
... "either we should have odrl:ACTION: odrl:play or action: play"

<simonstey> "play": "odrl:play", https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/vocab/ODRL22.jsonld#L96

Ivan: "my experience is that the predicates should be in the context file, but the objects are not guaranteed to be in the namespace, so the example is correct."

"as is".

Simon: "if play is only an object, it shouldn't be in the context file"

Ivan: "yes"

<ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#intended-audience

<ivan> https://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld

<simonstey> (which is the whole point of including a context)

Ivan: "I'm with Michael on this."

<simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/111

Ivan: "We refer to OID in the specs. Let's try to avoid inconsistency here."
... "let's clean up these minor inconsistencies."

"let's put the cleaned up json file"

"online."

"let's look at a specific example."