12:25:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:25:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/26-poe-irc
12:25:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:25:16 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:25:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
12:25:18 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:25:19 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:25:19 <trackbot> Date: 26 June 2017
12:25:23 <renato> present+
12:26:54 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170626
12:26:54 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170626
12:27:43 <simonstey> present+
12:29:08 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
12:29:27 <ivan> present+
12:29:41 <michaelS> present+
12:31:06 <CarolineB> CarolineB has joined #poe
12:31:15 <victor> victor has joined #poe
12:31:20 <renato> 12:30 pm  |  Greenwich Time (Reykjavik, GMT)  |  1 hr
12:31:34 <victor> hi
12:31:49 <CarolineB> present+ CarolineB
12:31:59 <victor> present+ victor
12:32:21 <simonstey> regrets+ Sabrina
12:33:46 <benws> benws has joined #poe
12:35:29 <victor> i can scribe if you like
12:35:53 <victor> Scribe: victor
12:36:04 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2017/06/19-poe-minutes
12:36:09 <michaelS> scribenick: victor
12:36:09 <victor> topic: approve the last meeting's minutes
12:36:21 <phila> (not present)
12:36:31 <victor> RESOLVED: last meeting's minutes are approved
12:36:34 <benws> hmmm - problems calling in
12:37:51 <victor> TOPIC: test cases
12:38:07 <victor> renato: I have explored the practices of other groups and their exit criteria
12:38:44 <victor> renato: the w3c mawg listed "features" which were implemented by implementors. they were the key selling idea.
12:38:50 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/test/cr-exit.md
12:40:02 <phila> q+
12:40:03 <victor> renato: we can create test cases for each of the features listed in the url above
12:40:38 <victor> phila: I had an action item due, currently almost done trying to identify what an ODRL Evaluator had to do
12:41:35 <victor> phila: I made notes to the examples, the exit criteria would be to check whether the output of the evaluator is the one expected given one or more policies.
12:41:52 <phila> ack me
12:41:52 <victor> phila: the key is "what an evaluator must do"
12:42:17 <Brian_Ulicny> Brian_Ulicny has joined #poe
12:42:22 <Brian_Ulicny> present+
12:42:45 <victor> renato: constraints in any case are evaluated by black boxes.
12:43:11 <victor> renato: validation is first
12:43:39 <victor> phila: i am trying to write down what happens one the black box has worked, "not how the black box works"
12:44:41 <simonstey> +q
12:44:52 <phila> ack s
12:45:18 <victor> simonstey: is the output yes/no or the policy containing the set of rules which are in effect?
12:45:42 <victor> simonstey: e.g. given a policy with 20 rules, shouldn't the policy evaluator say which is/are the rules which are in effect?
12:46:17 <victor> q+
12:46:43 <phila> ack v
12:46:51 <phila> victor: Is the ODRLE stateless?
12:46:54 <ivan> ack victor
12:46:58 <simonstey> +q
12:47:06 <phila> ... A god feature IMO is that it would be
12:47:09 <phila> ack s
12:47:19 <phila> simonstey: You don't really have a choice of which rules you can take
12:47:53 <phila> ... If the OE is evaluating a request against a policy, all the rules apply, you can't ignore some
12:48:08 <victor> simonstey: for each request, there is as an output
12:48:10 <phila> victor: Yes, I'm saying there should be only one request for the test cases
12:48:25 <victor> victor: yes, in a system without memory, the test cases should only have at most "requests" but not "sequences of requests".
12:49:28 <victor> simonstey: we cannot foresee how the odrl evaluator should be as long as the test cases are passed
12:50:04 <simonstey> +q
12:51:01 <victor> renato: it is quite likely that some implementations only consider validation, whereas "evaluation" will not be regarded.
12:51:17 <benws> Sorry guys - I can't call in. V. odd.
12:52:03 <victor> simonstey: the absolute minimum should abide to the IM in its section 2.7 onward.
12:52:20 <victor> simonstey: conflict resolution etc. has to be checked/tested
12:52:37 <victor> simonstey: propagation of constraints in the root level etc.
12:53:23 <phila> ack s
12:54:01 <phila> +1 to simonstey
12:54:18 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/test/cr-exit.md
12:54:19 <victor> simonstey: we need to check whether ODRL implementations do that, unless we use "MAY"s. etc. The absolute minium is "given a policy or set of set of policies, possibly with conflicts and conflict resolution information, reduce the set of rules to the result of applying the spec".
12:54:47 <victor> renato: in the web above, you can see that a feature is "A Policy that includes Policy inhertiance".
12:55:10 <victor> renato: we can write test cases for each of the bullet points above
12:56:20 <victor> victor: Phila, have you written anything?
12:56:33 <victor> phila: hopefully today I'll distribute something
12:57:04 <victor> renato: is there anything missing from the exit criteria list?
12:57:47 <victor> renato: is this ok?
12:57:57 <victor> phila: yes
12:58:21 <phila> chair: Renato
12:58:25 <phila> present+
12:58:31 <phila> regrets: Ben
12:58:35 <victor> subtopic: who are the potential implementations?
12:58:59 <victor> q+
12:59:11 <victor> q-
12:59:29 <victor> renato: we should contact potential implementors out of the WG
12:59:42 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/test/implementors.md
13:00:12 <victor> renato: we should try to fill the table provided in IRL link above
13:00:25 <ivan> q+
13:00:48 <victor> renato: carolina could have feedback from three organizations (?)
13:01:27 <victor> s/carolina/Caroline
13:01:35 <victor> ivan: 3 implementations are in the low side
13:01:46 <victor> renato: indeed
13:01:54 <victor> +1
13:03:14 <renato> Fraunhofer Gesellschaft
13:03:33 <victor> victor: UPM will provide an implementation, as long as abiding to the test cases is not terribly complicated
13:03:45 <victor> renato: possibly Fraunhofer will also.
13:04:04 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/164
13:04:15 <victor> victor: UPM has staterd in a Pubby fork to serve linked data conditionally.
13:04:54 <victor> topic: Add "source" property to Collections Github Issue
13:05:39 <victor> renato: the MAWG has decided to use "source" to prevent id hijaacking
13:06:13 <victor> renato: so for the collections, "source" would be used, and not "uid"
13:06:33 <michaelS> q+
13:06:38 <simonstey> +q
13:06:41 <simonstey> ack ivan
13:07:27 <michaelS> akc m
13:07:30 <michaelS> ack m
13:08:11 <simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/201
13:08:19 <victor> michaelS: this has to be explained to the users of the information model. source is an alternative to id; but why/how?
13:09:49 <victor> simonstey: by not using uid, blank nodes may live. Then, additional constraints identified by a certain URI might be concealed.
13:10:29 <simonstey> ack simonstey
13:10:29 <ivan> q+
13:11:31 <victor> renato: it is about creating another property which would be "source".
13:11:54 <ivan> ack ivan
13:12:58 <victor> ivan: not sure if the background of the problem is clear. in RDF, once a triple is out there in the web it is not confined, and anyone can see.
13:13:43 <victor> ivan: so if someone makes a statement on a resource on the web ("ivan is blonde"), this is public, and this is what hijaacking is about.
13:14:06 <victor> renato: does anybody oppose?
13:14:31 <victor> (silence)
13:14:40 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/162
13:14:43 <victor> topic: Duty at Policy level GitHub Issue
13:15:24 <victor> renato: it is about a policy saying "pay me 5 dollars".
13:15:55 <victor> renato: which as of today, clashes with the current IM definition, which associates duties only at the permission level.
13:16:16 <simonstey> +q
13:16:37 <victor> renato: root-level-duties may prove useful for inheritance in an agreement.
13:17:00 <michaelS> q+
13:18:22 <victor> simonstey: i already commented in the github, there is an inconsistency now: we said that the IM specifies that a policy must have at least a rule (permission, prohibition, duty), but then we say that duty can only hang from a permission.
13:18:51 <victor> simonstey: if a duty is added to an offer/agreement then there must be one permission. otherwise, there cannot be a duty alone.
13:19:48 <victor> michaels: this is related to shortcuts at the policy level.
13:19:55 <victor> q+
13:20:39 <simonstey> ack simonstey
13:20:42 <simonstey> ack michaelS
13:20:52 <victor> michaels: we have some already shortcuts
13:21:52 <simonstey> q+
13:21:56 <simonstey> ack victor
13:22:34 <victor> victor: I want some clarifications in the shortcuts
13:22:39 <renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#composition
13:23:13 <victor> simonstey: the duty case is different from other shortcuts like "odrl:mypolicy odrl:permission odrl:play".
13:23:58 <victor> simonstey: in the first case, it can be specified otherwise, yes, but with too much effort
13:24:48 <victor> victor: I saw and advantage in having a policy defined by a set of triples in the form "odrl:mypolicy odrl:PROPERTY odrl:VALUE".
13:25:08 <victor> renato: we can see them not as "shortcuts" but as first class objects
13:25:27 <victor> q+
13:26:37 <victor> renato: the duties are naturally "top level" in some cases.
13:28:03 <simonstey> ack simonstey
13:28:07 <simonstey> ack victor
13:28:08 <michaelS> q+
13:28:58 <victor> simonstey: there are some duties with an implicit permission. consider GDPR. One may say "if you want to handle with permissions you have to do X"
13:29:22 <victor> victor: if we have two manners of expressing something, we can define a CANONICALIZATION operation (much like in the XML world canonicalization is)
13:29:40 <victor> s/permissions/personaldata
13:30:15 <victor> michaelS: (explains a case victor does not grasp)
13:30:23 <phila> q?
13:30:26 <phila> ack m
13:31:12 <victor> renato: he means: we have non-conflicting permission A and prohibition B, and a duty at the policy level.
13:31:28 <victor> renato: what is the meaning of the duty once being satisfied?
13:32:17 <victor> simonstey: you only pay for your right, but the prohibition also holds.
13:32:23 <victor> renato: we need more discussion on this.
13:32:45 <victor> RESOLUTION: to accept "source" for collections as an alternative identification mechanism
13:33:15 <victor> renato: please join the github issues
13:33:38 <ivan> q+
13:33:49 <simonstey> :(
13:34:16 <michaelS> says thanks to phila
13:35:40 <victor> ivan: will set up a new W3C call for the next weeks
13:36:11 <victor> ivan: but i will be on vacation for 4 weeks
13:36:44 <victor> ivan: ralph will fix the webex meetings'
13:37:38 <victor> phila: this is perhaps my last call
13:38:05 <victor> phila: i will clean up the minutes for the last time.
13:38:48 <renato> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:39:00 <renato> RRSAgent, draft minutes V2
13:39:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/26-poe-minutes.html renato