12:25:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:25:47 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/12-poe-irc
12:25:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:25:49 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:25:51 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
12:25:51 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:25:52 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:25:52 <trackbot> Date: 12 June 2017
12:25:56 <ivan> Chair: Renato
12:26:06 <renato> present+
12:26:22 <ivan> Agenda:  https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon201706012
12:27:15 <phila> phila has joined #poe
12:28:05 <ivan> present+
12:28:35 <simonstey> present+
12:30:19 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
12:30:32 <michaelS> present+
12:30:54 <CarolineB> CarolineB has joined #poe
12:31:14 <benws> :)
12:31:26 <CarolineB> present+ CarolineB
12:33:19 <phila> present+
12:33:36 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon201706012
12:33:42 <phila> chair: Renato
12:34:12 <phila> regrets+ Victor
12:34:27 <CarolineB> Topic: Approve agenda
12:34:33 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2017/06/05-poe-minutes
12:34:40 <phila> s/agenda/minutes/
12:34:49 <CarolineB> *me thanks!
12:35:31 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2017/05/29-poe-minutes
12:35:34 <michaelS> https://www.w3.org/2017/05/29-poe-minutes
12:35:43 <CarolineB> renato: these are minutes from the week before and last weeks chat
12:35:58 <CarolineB> renato: approved
12:36:04 <michaelS> scribe: CarolineB
12:36:05 <phila> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 29 May meeting approved
12:36:08 <michaelS> scribenick:
12:36:12 <michaelS> scribenick: CarolineB
12:36:17 <CarolineB> Topic: Deliverables
12:36:37 <phila> s/Deliverables/alsoRequires for Asset/Party/
12:36:56 <Sabrina> Sabrina has joined #poe
12:37:12 <Brian_Ulicny> Brian_Ulicny has joined #poe
12:37:13 <Sabrina> present+ sabrina
12:37:18 <Brian_Ulicny> present+
12:37:24 <benws> present+
12:38:36 <CarolineB> sabrina : alsoRequires tried to come up with an example (horzontal) but don't see the need jus tnow
12:38:51 <CarolineB> renato: so we can let it go for now
12:39:08 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/174
12:39:22 <phila> Topic: mandatory uid
12:40:22 <CarolineB> simon: mandatory uid - we don't allow blank nodes for assets and parties. Why are we limiting ourselves?
12:41:11 <CarolineB> simon: if we allow a blank node we can use other properties; e.g. foaf:name
12:41:37 <CarolineB> ... so we coudl change "must" to "should" perhaps?
12:43:25 <ivan> q+
12:43:30 <benws> q+
12:43:45 <simonstey> q+
12:43:51 <CarolineB> renato: party and asset are outside the policy, so we believed that they must be identified by id
12:44:34 <renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#function
12:45:29 <CarolineB> renato: so we recommended a uid + whatever other properties
12:45:34 <michaelS> q+
12:46:24 <simonstey> ack ivan
12:47:50 <CarolineB> ivan: agrees it should be a "should". There are cases where you can rely on external tools (owl or rule languages that will deduce correctly). The extra uid will be superfluous
12:48:16 <simonstey> ack benws
12:49:03 <CarolineB> benws: were we using blank nodes when we put constraints on assets and parties?
12:49:16 <CarolineB> ... we coudl say must be identified by eother a uid or a blank node
12:50:24 <CarolineB> simonstey: its different to say we must have an assigner or an assignee. Thats different to saying we must have a uid
12:51:12 <michaelS> ack m
12:51:15 <CarolineB> ... its all expressed in triples. a blank node is different ot a null value
12:51:18 <simonstey> ack simonstey
12:51:27 <simonstey> q+
12:51:32 <renato> q+
12:52:35 <CarolineB> michaelS: uses the example of a webpage. It has an identifier, but the person on the web page has only a name nad maybe contact details
12:52:46 <CarolineB> s/nad/and
12:52:50 <ivan> +1 to michaelS
12:53:31 <CarolineB> simonstey: Even if you have a uid you can't always uniquely identify someone
12:54:04 <simonstey> ack renato
12:54:12 <benws> ack s
12:54:35 <CarolineB> renato: you can declare 2 uids sameAs
12:55:00 <ivan> q?
12:55:14 <benws> q+
12:56:07 <CarolineB> ivan: if you can have many identifiers then its not a "must". You can use thse and not create a new uid
12:56:16 <CarolineB> s/thse/those
12:57:31 <CarolineB> benws: Theres a distinction between uniquely identifies and identifies uniquely
12:57:44 <CarolineB> ... the second suggest sit is the only id to use
12:58:55 <ivan> +1 to benws
12:58:57 <CarolineB> benws: we need things identified properly but we don't have to insist how it is done
13:00:04 <benws> q?
13:00:13 <benws> ack b
13:00:24 <CarolineB> ... poeple must give a party or asset an id which uniquely identifies the thing
13:00:49 <CarolineB> s/poeple/people
13:01:38 <CarolineB> benws: but it can be a uid or some other property
13:02:42 <CarolineB> renato: so if we change to "should", we need to add that the thing still needs to be uniquely identifiable
13:03:48 <CarolineB> simonstey: we should use "should" and recommend strongly that people ought to uniquely identify assets or parties
13:04:46 <phila> PROPOSED: That for asset and party, we change the MUST for uids from MUST to SHOULD, adding a narrative that if you don't use UIDs, then the system needs its own method of identifying the asset or party
13:04:47 <CarolineB> Proposal: cFor asset and party we change "must" for uid to "should" and add narrative to say that its recommended to find a way to uniquely identify
13:04:58 <phila> s+//PROPOSED: That for asset and party, we change the MUST for uids from MUST to SHOULD, adding a narrative that if you don't use UIDs, then the system needs its own method of identifying the asset or party
13:05:03 <simonstey> +1
13:05:12 <Sabrina> +1
13:05:23 <phila> +1
13:05:23 <michaelS> +1
13:05:26 <CarolineB> +1
13:05:29 <Brian_Ulicny> +1
13:05:33 <renato> +0.9
13:05:34 <phila> (I think Ivan was clearly a +1)
13:05:48 <phila> RESOLUTION: That for asset and party, we change the MUST for uids from MUST to SHOULD, adding a narrative that if you don't use UIDs, then the system needs its own method of identifying the asset or party
13:05:56 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:06:01 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:06:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/12-poe-minutes.html phila
13:06:15 <CarolineB> Topic: Test Cases
13:06:37 <renato> -1
13:06:43 <simonstey> -1
13:06:46 <michaelS> bad news
13:06:47 <benws> that would/will be a great loss
13:06:54 <CarolineB> phila: has been offered another job and is leaving in three weeks!!!
13:08:28 <CarolineB> ... ivan is a strong possibility to take over
13:09:26 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Policy_Inference
13:10:17 <CarolineB> simonstey: On the Wiki, I've highlighted the what I think the semantics should be
13:10:41 <CarolineB> .. it will become part of the formal sematics doc (in a more formal way)
13:11:04 <benws> q+
13:13:31 <CarolineB> phila: I wanted a black box to have a limited function. But group wanted an evaluator to tell you if a contrainst is in effect
13:13:47 <CarolineB> s/contrainst/constraint
13:14:53 <CarolineB> simonstey: see the outcome of an ODRL evaluator to be to tell you if all rules are in effect
13:16:21 <CarolineB> ... need to be really careful about what is overriden when there is a conflict
13:16:49 <benws> ack b
13:16:55 <CarolineB> renato: so, do we need a test case?
13:17:59 <CarolineB> simonstey: e.g. a policy with permission to present part a with a prohibition to stop Bob from printing part b
13:19:04 <CarolineB> .. and further W3C prohibition. So outcome could be the rules which are in effect (e.g. if you are Susan)
13:19:43 <CarolineB> renato: We have a raw policy, do we expect the evaluator to return a list of rules in effect
13:19:55 <CarolineB> simonstey: it woudl be the expanded policy
13:19:59 <phila> q+
13:20:06 <CarolineB> s/woudl/would
13:20:50 <phila> ack me
13:21:48 <CarolineB> phila: then the evaluator needs to know a lot. How do we define how it communicates with the black boxes?
13:22:26 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Policy_Inference#odrl:memberOf
13:22:50 <CarolineB> ... you would need to know the individual, if they are a member of staff at Thomson Reuters. What is the boundary of the evaluator?
13:23:18 <CarolineB> simonstey: we ask a black box about a duty and we ask a black box about a constraint
13:23:37 <benws> q+
13:24:11 <phila> ack b
13:24:34 <CarolineB> benws: clarification - becasue we have extedned relations, the evaluator would need to be aware
13:24:38 <CarolineB> simonstey: yes
13:24:50 <CarolineB> s/extedned/extended
13:25:26 <CarolineB> renato: woudl phil and simon work onthe test cases before Phil disappears :(
13:25:48 <CarolineB> simonstey: that will be hard
13:26:06 <CarolineB> phila: I can write freestanding text to set out what an evaluator does
13:26:25 <phila> action: phila to draft text defining an ODRL Evaluator
13:26:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Draft text defining an odrl evaluator [on Phil Archer - due 2017-06-19].
13:26:46 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/projects/1
13:26:54 <phila> Topic: Deadline setting
13:27:01 <CarolineB> Topic: model and vocab
13:27:04 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
13:27:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/12-poe-minutes.html phila
13:27:07 <CarolineB> renato: want ot set a deadline
13:27:55 <simonstey> +q
13:28:25 <phila> scribenick: phila
13:28:47 <phila> simonstey: I think it's not only up to the reviewers to raise issues. we can all do that, read through the docs and raise issues etc.
13:28:55 <benws> q+
13:28:57 <phila> ... I think there may be more from me
13:28:59 <phila> ack s
13:29:17 <phila> simonstey: I encourage everyone to at least create a GH account and the raise issues
13:29:23 <phila> ack b
13:29:42 <phila> benws: Where there are sub editing issues, what's the best way of pushing them forward?
13:30:00 <phila> renato: Go ahead and doi it
13:30:05 <phila> s/doi/do/
13:30:20 <phila> renato: It can be more effort to write the issue than to actually make the correction
13:30:26 <phila> michaelS: Who will do the make action?>
13:30:39 <phila> renato: The vocab - you need Raptor installed to do that.
13:31:01 <phila> ... If you edit the turtle file - that's the master - you don't touch anything but the turtle file
13:31:14 <phila> renato: If Isee a change, I can do a make
13:31:19 <phila> s/Isee/I see/
13:32:28 <benws> I too have to leave
13:32:52 <benws> Congratulations to Phil - but will miss your influence and help
13:33:23 <phila> [General discussion about review timing, deadlines etc.]
13:33:35 <phila> Topic: AOB?
13:33:43 <phila> [None]
13:33:52 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
13:33:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/12-poe-minutes.html phila
15:57:04 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe
16:00:24 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:00:24 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2017/06/12-poe-actions.rdf :
16:00:24 <RRSAgent> ACTION: phila to draft text defining an ODRL Evaluator [1]
16:00:24 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/06/12-poe-irc#T13-26-25