<benws> Hi Renato - what's the pw?

<renato> webexpoe

<benws> Thanks

<scribe> scribe: simonstey

<scribe> chair: benws

admin

benws: approval of last week's minutes
... hearing no objections
... accepted

github issues

benws: let's start with an easy one

https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/204

scribe: I made a comment regarding inheriting status property
... but since we disallow that anyway

simonstey: explaining the rationale behind it

benws: shall we take a vote?

PROPSAL: accept simonstey's proposal https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/204

RESOLUTION: accept simonstey's proposal to remove inheritallowed and allow multi-inheritance

michaelS: https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/206
... I feel atomic/compound constraints are exactly defined like one would define subclasses

but they currently aren

scribe: but they currently aren't

benws: I met a number of instances where a set of constraints were connected with ORs
... I'm proposing that left/rightoperand are subclasses of operand and allow an arbitrary number of those operands in compound constraints

https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#core-components-logical

+q

odrl: or (:c1 :c2 :c3)
... constraint [
... or (....)

]

odrl: constraints [
... leftOp
... operator odrl:eq
... rightOp .. ]

(:c1 :c2 :c3)

simonstey: [giving examples]

benws: what about andsequence?
... we could have them as atomic constraints

michaelS: but rightoperands can't be resources
... the current spec says literal

benws: well that's over restrictive

<michaelS> simonstey: suggested to open up the rightOperand to more than just literal values

simonstey: if you restrict rightoperands to literals, having a URI as value is basically nothing more than a string

benws: shall we subclass them?

simonstey: [discussing differences of contraint types]

benws: we should raise 2 issues; one for clarifying the range of rightoperands
... one for the compound constraints

model clarification

benws: we have two issues here, 1. what duties on a policy level mean
... 2. policy conflicts & duties

<Sabrina> we would need - consequences

Sabrina: I always found it strange that duties were so tightly coupled to permissions
... if you have a regulation, there are not really any permissions
... you have obligations that you have to fulfill
... and there are consequences if you don't do that

https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2-1/#section-5#

renato: but is it as simple as adding a new property to duties?

Sabrina: well.. hasConsequence yes
... but remedy not
... you can't just pick either or

benws: what are your thoughts on representing regulations with ODRL sabrina/simon?
... what about moving it to a profile?

Sabrina: meh

<Sabrina> simonstey: I don't think it is such a big deal - we just need to add duties to the policies

benws: renato & michaelS are you comf. with giving 2 weeks time for coming up with a reasonable explain. for that?

renato: this group really has to finish this year
... we don't have many implementors
... if we don't meet the dec. deadline, we might get into trouble

benws: if we could have a proposal in 2 weeks time, we can consider having it

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)

Present: renato michaelS benws simonstey Sabrina

WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Ivan)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ +Caroline

Regrets: +Caroline
Found Scribe: simonstey
Inferring ScribeNick: simonstey
Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170703
Found Date: 03 Jul 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/07/03-poe-minutes.html
People with action items: