<victor> Hi! I do not remember which was the password for the webex. would anybody be so kind of remembering me that?

<renato> victor - just emailed to you!

RESOLUTION: Accept last weeks minutes

Consequences proposal

<Sabrina> In the GDPR consequences are defined in Article 83: 4. Infringements of the following provisions shall, in accordance with paragraph 2, be subject to administrative fines up to 10 000 000 EUR, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 2 % of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher: (a) the obligations of the controller and the processor pursuant to Articles 8, 11, 25 to 39 and 42 and 43; ..... 5.Infringements[CUT]

<Sabrina> following provisions shall, in accordance with paragraph 2, be subject to administrative fines up to 20 000 000 EUR, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 4 % of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher: (a) the basic principles for processing, including conditions for consent, pursuant to Articles 5, 6, 7 and 9; ......

sabrina: we will have rules with obligations. We need consequences tied to articles one by one
... obligations/duties should be at the same level as permissions

<renato> See: https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/191

sabrina: benws: we need a proposal that we can accept - by Wedensday?
... We need to give you a justification. Do we need it?

benws: if we keep ODRL to model licences, then we may not need it

sabrina: I am looking at data protection, simon is looking at licences

renato: trying to work out what we need to add to the model. Consequence/remedy a proerty of duty

sabrina: simon and I need to discuss. looking for the simplest solution

benws: introduce an obligation at the rule level?

sabrina: we see duty and obligation sameAs

renato: current proposal is duty can be expressed at policy level.
... policy will have an obligation which will point to a duty. Get no return for it

<benws> ach re

sabrina: we'd define obligation as a class
... victor: is there a use case for this feature?
... have put the GDPR as one
... our proposal will try and fit our needs in the simplest way. ODRL originally for licences but we want it to cover regulations too

benws: we have time restrictions. We need a formal proposal asap

GitHub Issues

<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/210

Role of the ODRL Common Vocabulary and of Profiles

michaelS: what is role of common vocabulary in ODRL world?
... we have a core model and then a profile (when more terms are needed)
... is it required there are only two ways to express a policy. 1 by core vocab, 2. plus profile
... is there a third way - core vocab + something undefined?
... my suggestion is to have a strict rule to say it can only be 1 and 2. IM with optionally terms from a profile

benws: core profile is minimal
... should we say use a profile + common terms?

Typo - core profile is minimal should be core model is minimal

renato: e.g. music video. I will create a suitable profile, but people may not understand the terms

michaelS: a processor that says it supports a profile must be able to understand all the terms of the profile

benws: is this a principle?

benwsl: If a processor publishes that it understands certain profiles then it cannot be tested if terms are used that are not in the profile

renato: could the processor declare it understand certain terms (not defined by profile)

linda: it might not be able to understand all of a conplex profile

benws: profile supports interoperability

renato: now its about what does it mean to understand. can we mot imagine a processor that just displays actions. It doesn't have to understand the actions itself

benws: if a processor does not understand the common vocab then it cannot evaluate terms

renato: so we assume, without a profile, you are only using the core terms
... and if you have the profile in your policy does the policy become invalid?

benws: its the processor which would provide dodgy results

<renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#profile-core

benws: the problem is not with the policy itself its to do with the processor evaluating the policy

michaelS: its like - someone writing a text in different languages assumes the reader can understand. If you don't understandits not invalid, its not usable

linda: this is critical if a processor is going to work
... how can they publish what they can understand accurately
... perhaps declare whatit can understand within a profile?

caroline: isnt it reasonable to say an evaluator shodu understand a whoel profile, or the licence may not be fully transmitted

renato: but we do need to encourage implementers

michaelS: should a processor just be able to understand the common model?

benws: actually the standard only needs to say a processor should implement the core model. Profiles are beyond W3C

renato: can an evaluator also be a human

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/usggestion/suggestion/
Succeeded: s/prodile/profile/
Succeeded: s/nderstnad/understand/
Succeeded: s/whcih/which/
Present: renato benws sabrina CarolineB Linda victor MichaelS
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: CarolineB
Inferring Scribes: CarolineB
Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170717
Found Date: 17 Jul 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/07/17-poe-minutes.html
People with action items: