12:23:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:23:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/07/10-poe-irc
12:23:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:23:16 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:23:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
12:23:18 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:23:19 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:23:19 <trackbot> Date: 10 July 2017
12:23:28 <renato> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:23:39 <renato> RRSAgent, draft minutes V2
12:23:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/10-poe-minutes.html renato
12:23:59 <renato> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170710
12:24:09 <renato> present+ renato
12:24:16 <renato> Chair: renato
12:24:23 <CarolineB> CarolineB has joined #poe
12:24:26 <renato> Regrets: Ivan
12:24:50 <CarolineB> * whats the webex password?
12:26:13 <renato> pwd=webexpoe
12:29:15 <victor> victor has joined #poe
12:29:19 <victor> Hi! how are you?
12:29:24 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
12:29:35 <simonstey> s/pwd=webexpoe//
12:29:40 <victor> renato, can I get the password for the WebEx? Last Monday I was traveling and could not connect...
12:30:01 <victor> thanks Simon
12:31:05 <benws_> benws_ has joined #poe
12:31:54 <benws_> benws_ has joined #poe
12:32:17 <benws_> Hi guys - what is the PW?
12:32:18 <renato> RRSAgent, draft minutes V2
12:32:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/10-poe-minutes.html renato
12:34:20 <Sabrina> Sabrina has joined #poe
12:35:29 <michaelS> scribe: michaelS
12:35:34 <michaelS> scribenick: michaelS
12:35:46 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2017/07/03-poe-minutes
12:35:51 <michaelS> TOPIC: Approving last meetings minutes
12:36:30 <benws_> Thanks!
12:36:32 <michaelS> resolution: last minutes were approved
12:36:44 <benws_> present+
12:36:53 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/206
12:36:59 <michaelS> topic: deliverables/constraints
12:37:09 <victor> present+ victor
12:37:12 <simonstey> present+
12:37:19 <michaelS> renato: pointed at the issue and summarized the discussion
12:37:24 <victor> (See agenda here: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170710)
12:37:42 <Sabrina> present+ Sabrina
12:38:46 <michaelS> renato: suggested to have two independant classes Constraint and LogicalConstraint
12:39:06 <michaelS> ... and each class will specific properties and operators
12:39:59 <michaelS> renato: asked for comments
12:40:35 <michaelS> renato: this is not a big change, more covering the narrative
12:41:18 <michaelS> renato: the LogicalConstraint can have multiplie operands
12:41:48 <michaelS> ... how to deal with odrl:andSequence
12:42:54 <victor> If it helps, I would just say that in MPEG-21 Media Contract Ontology, we opted for a very similar approach. See informally here: http://vroddon.sdf-eu.org/mco/mco-core/#FactComposition
12:43:52 <michaelS> michaelS: andSequence leans more toward the Constraint with only two operands
12:44:21 <benws_> q+
12:45:29 <michaelS> benws_: the sequence fits better with the Constraint
12:46:44 <benws_> +1
12:47:21 <michaelS> michaelS: gave an update on the changes of terms Atomic Constraint -> Constraint
12:47:49 <michaelS> benws_: we do this because RDF sequence are ugly
12:48:08 <michaelS> renato: yes, in JSON-LD this would be no drama
12:48:44 <michaelS> renato: conclusion: we use andSequence with (Atomic) Constraint
12:49:08 <simonstey> +q
12:49:10 <michaelS> benws_: we need a different name for ODRL's xor
12:49:19 <simonstey> -q
12:49:29 <simonstey> odrl:oneOf ?
12:49:56 <michaelS> ... the ODRL xor has a different truth table than the logical xor
12:50:00 <simonstey> odrl:xone ?
12:50:33 <michaelS> (discussion about the name)
12:51:19 <victor> :)
12:52:39 <michaelS> renato: do we have to deprecate xor?
12:52:53 <michaelS> simonstey: nobody has implemented it yet
12:53:02 <victor> as non-official
12:53:33 <michaelS> IM OUT FOR 1 MINUTE
12:54:50 <michaelS> renato: we add odrl:xone as sub-property of operator
12:56:45 <michaelS> sim
12:57:00 <michaelS> simonstey: no, sub-property of operand
12:57:25 <michaelS> renato: this is accepted
12:57:31 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/162
12:57:46 <michaelS> TOPIC: Github issue 162
12:58:31 <renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#duty
12:58:48 <benws_> Didn't we say we'd give Sabrina and Simon another week to make their suggestions around this?
12:59:00 <michaelS> renato: outlined his actions: the Duty section of the Information Model was revised
12:59:06 <benws_> OK ...
13:00:18 <michaelS> ... any questions?
13:00:23 <benws_> +1
13:01:08 <benws_> ack b
13:01:35 <michaelS> renato: next week we talk about the Consquence issue
13:02:14 <michaelS> TOPIC: Test Cases
13:03:15 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/test/cr-exit.md
13:03:35 <michaelS> renato: having successfully completed test cases is essential for the CR
13:04:00 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/test/implementors.md
13:04:29 <michaelS> ... we should approach implementers and invite to do the tests
13:05:12 <renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#odre
13:05:15 <michaelS> ... unfortunately Phil, who has worked on the test cases, is not with the group anymore
13:06:23 <simonstey> +q
13:06:30 <michaelS> ... any comments on Phil's outline?
13:06:54 <michaelS> simonstey: this shows what we have agreed on.
13:08:11 <michaelS> ... he is not sure about this Natural Language thingy
13:08:22 <benws_> q+
13:09:04 <michaelS> ... as the processing of a Policy will get more complex by that
13:09:53 <michaelS> benws_: tends to agree with simonstey
13:10:32 <michaelS> ... the evaluator should not look into details of constraints etc
13:10:33 <simonstey> +q
13:10:41 <simonstey> ack benws_
13:10:45 <michaelS> ... we need a kind of truth table
13:11:10 <michaelS> ... will an evaluator ever run over something else than an agreement
13:11:22 <michaelS> renato: agress to this assumption
13:12:33 <michaelS> simonstey: disagreed: what about combined offer - an evaluator would be essential
13:12:59 <michaelS> ... to find out if the two (or more) Policies are conflicting.
13:13:50 <michaelS> ... if we limit the effect of a rule to Agreements only we would have to rewrite the Information Model
13:13:57 <benws_> I think Simon is right
13:14:33 <Sabrina> It would also be relevant for checking the best offer
13:14:50 <michaelS> ... we could define that an Agreement and an Offer have to cover different rules.
13:15:07 <michaelS> renato: how to move forward on the test cases?
13:15:35 <victor> (a) Phil's work has to be completed (b) Implementors must start implementing features
13:15:58 <simonstey> +q
13:16:24 <michaelS> benws_: he will have a look at that and pass this to developers at TR
13:17:21 <michaelS> simonstey: the test cases should test all the essential features of the ODRL Information Model
13:17:39 <michaelS> ... a test case doesn't have to be a real-world case.
13:18:17 <michaelS> renato: agreed - who will write the test cases testing the features?
13:18:22 <victor> ideally, implementors should not mess with the test cases definition
13:19:24 <michaelS> renato: the test cases should define the input and the expected output/result
13:21:00 <benws_> q+
13:21:04 <michaelS> simonstey: inheritance is a good example: policy C interits from B and B inherits from A
13:21:15 <michaelS> ... what are the effective rules in C?
13:21:30 <simonstey> ack simonstey
13:21:33 <simonstey> ack benws_
13:22:32 <simonstey> sounds good
13:22:38 <michaelS> benws_: he meant he will share abstract definitions with developers
13:23:15 <simonstey> q+
13:23:41 <victor> i think they should be different persons
13:23:59 <victor> sure :)
13:24:28 <michaelS> simonstey: implementors should have the right to issue new use cases
13:24:44 <renato> s/use/test/
13:25:48 <benws_> Will do
13:26:19 <michaelS> renato: any further test case issues?
13:26:37 <michaelS> ... if you are an implementer pleasea add your name to the list of implementers
13:26:43 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/projects/1
13:26:55 <michaelS> TOPIC: Kanban Project Status
13:27:29 <michaelS> renato: went over the issues in the Project Status
13:27:35 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/158
13:28:53 <michaelS> We should consider adding Creative Commons terms to the Common Vocab
13:29:27 <michaelS> simonstey: why including CC - there are other similar vocabularies too?
13:29:40 <michaelS> ... why not other/all too?
13:29:46 <benws_> q+
13:29:49 <victor> (a) creative commons's vocab is used out there (at least the property cc:license) (b) this vocab has been used by other (c) everybody knows cc
13:29:51 <victor> q+
13:30:06 <michaelS> ... doesn't not like to prefer CC over other vocabularies.
13:30:16 <simonstey> ack simonstey
13:30:25 <simonstey> ack benws_
13:30:44 <michaelS> benws_: CC is only relevant is some businesses
13:30:57 <michaelS> victor: CC is a widely used and quite flat vocabulary
13:31:44 <victor> A very beatiful example: the OGL license (open government license)
13:31:46 <michaelS> renato: invited to add comments to Github issue #158
13:32:13 <victor> please go to to RDF distiller here: https://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/Overview.html and try with the beautiful OGL license: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
13:32:20 <michaelS> ... At the next call: we need to close the open issues
13:32:39 <victor> thanks have a nice week!
13:32:41 <renato> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:32:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/10-poe-minutes.html renato
13:32:47 <michaelS> michaelS: regret for the next 3 weeks
13:33:13 <michaelS> RRSAgent,  draft minutes
13:33:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/10-poe-minutes.html michaelS
13:33:18 <renato> Have fun Michael....stay away from bikes !
13:33:44 <michaelS> I'll be careful on my bike :-)
13:35:07 <renato> renato has joined #poe
14:06:29 <benws> benws has joined #poe
14:11:47 <renato> renato has joined #poe