See also: IRC log
<simonstey> who's francois?
<renato> I am host now...
<renato> Will zap him....
<renato> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 29 May 2017
<renato> Chair: Renato
<renato> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170529
i can scribe
if you like
<scribe> scribe: victor
<michaelS> scribenick: victor
<scribe> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170529
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2017/05/18-poe-minutes
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2017/05/19-poe-minutes
michaelS: readability has suffered with the new minutes' formatter
ivan: this behaviour was chosen by a specific tester
michaelS: some comments appear as anonymous while they weren't
victor: comments have to be prefixed by author or prefixed by three dots...
simon: (the same)
renato: appart from that issue... is there anything else?
<michaelS> +2
+1
<Serena> +1
<renato> +1
RESOLUTION: Minutes of the last two meetings' minutes (London) approved.
renato: I have prepared a short summary for those not attending the meeting (not in person, not at WebEx)
simon: I was commissioned to prepare a specific document, but still need to know if this is necessary for the IM or to the vocab.
renato: whereas for Action these properties seem natural, for Asset and Party ... are these properties appropriate?
simon: there are examples for
both: narrower Parties can be imagined: something defined for a
broader party it should apply to the narrower parties.
... blank nodes play a role here. A blank node describing a
party can have some constraints, and its meaning being "any
individual satisfying that constraint".
victor: (only type this) - Whereas I agree with this idea, because it is an incredibly practical solution (which I have also adopted), please note that the meaning of the RDF graph does not mean exactly the same, does not mean "any individual" but "one individual)
simon: memberOf as an equivalent to narrowThan
michaelS: When speaking about "UK residents of W3C", the precise sense of the relation is important (narrowThan/ broaderThan)
simonstey: partOf is more general
renato: partOf sounds better
simonstey: on the 18th we decided
on this, already. do we still need that?
... do we still need to have Collection?
... philA was meaning URI referring to a collection was fine as
a mention to the group itself, not as a reference to each of
the individuals.
renato: what about AssetGroup?
michaelS: then AssetItem, AssetItems
simonstey: the plural S can be easily overlooked
victor: (only chat, not aloud) as an external reference for the ontology, there was a trivial ontology design pattern with carefully chosen definitions; see http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/partof.owl
<michaelS> ack
simonstey: in the F2F we
mentioned there would be Asset individuals and Asset
collections as the only subclass that can be constrained
(?)
... only asset collections can have parts. A single asset
cannot.
... There are also roles. I can image a policy applying to the
role "Mother", e.g., any woman having given birth.
... then, is then a particular woman a mother?
<renato> proposal: rename narrowerThan to partOf for Asset and Party and remove AssetIndividual and PartyIndividual
<simonstey_> +1
<renato> +1
+1
<ivan> 0
<michaelS> +1
ivan: this discussion should also consider philA and the semantics being discussed more thoroughly
simonstey: we have proposed the weak version; not removing Collection nor anything else.
ivan: which was philA's point?
<Serena> +1 (sorry I didn't press ENTER)
simonstey: you cannot say the target pointing to a dataset applies to each url identifying a dataset's part.
<renato> file:///Users/renato/users/odrl/W3C-POE/GIT-POE/model/index.html#constraint-asset
<renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#constraint-asset
RESOLUTION: rename narrowerThan to partOf for Asset and Party and remove AssetIndividual and PartyIndividual
RESOLUTION: approved
victor: (only posted, not aloud, provides an example for the constraint assets https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Best_Practices#9._How_to_constrain_assets_and_parties)
simonstey: Example: I can do something, Sabrina cant, according to a odrl policy. But for me to do an action, I need her.
simonsey: for actions, it is trivial. "If you want to share an asset, you need to reproduce it".
simonstey: in absence of additional constrain, if I can share I can reproduce and distribute.
michaelS: the word "requires"
suggests there must be an explicit extra statement
... the default is now that "things not prohibitted, are
prohibitted", if affected by this property
victor: (not aloud): what about implies?
"odrl:implies"
simonstey: At least the triple
"odrl:share odrl:implies odrl:distribute" makes sense.
... but for parties/asset we may not need this.
victor: software dependencies may be another example for "requires for assets"
simonstey: are you thinking of software libraries?
renato: software are not necessarily "partOf" but other sort of relation
victor: example of GPL tainting other software residing in the same CD in which a GPLed software is distributed.
simonstey: the software case is
complex and not clear. is it very application specific?
... If you have two policies for software A and software B,
you have no conflict per se
renato: what about party?
simonstey: I recall the example of the mother
renato: let us ask Sabrina for
useful examples
... we leave it now unvoted.
simonstey: the discussion here is
about roles.
... in the airport's case, we have here "responsibleOf"
renato: another example about
printing.
... we need more thought.
<renato> proposal: rename alsoRequires to implies for Action
<simonstey_> +1
<renato> +1
<Serena> +1
<michaelS_> +0.9
+1 (conscious of the simplistic approach, not considering temporal info: pre-implication, post-implication, etc.)
<ivan> 0 (neutral)
RESOLUTION: rename alsoRequires to implies for Action
makingOmelette pre-implies breakingEggs
<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/projects/1
/me did not fully catch Renato's comment
renato: michaelS volunteer as RightsML examples-provider
simonstey: does RightsML deprecate any ODRL feature?
michaelS: In the context of the split of vocabulary (common vocabulary etc.), it was said "if a profile wants to adopt a term, it has to be said explicitly"
simonstey: but will profiles be
able to rename key terms like "Prohibition" (for example using
"Ban")
... ?
michaelS: RightsML did not do anything like that.
renato: AOB?
michaelS: regrets the next Monday
<renato> same minds ;-)
<renato> doing it again to see the V2 format
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/regret/regrets/ Present: renato michaelS simonstey_ victor ivan WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Phil, Sabrina, Ivan, Ben) Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ -, Ivan Regrets: - Ivan Sabrina benws phila Found Scribe: victor Found ScribeNick: victor Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170529 Found Date: 29 May 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/05/29-poe-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]