<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

approve last meetings' minutes (18th and 19th)

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)

Clarification of the new properties narrowThan and alsoRequired

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)

The property requiredBy

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.