Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

last meetings minutes

RESOLUTION: last week's minutes were accepted

<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/projects/1

Editor's drafts

renato: he has worked on all the open issues
... and worked on the two major issues: remedy and making profiles mandatory
... The IM and Vocab draft of 3 August cover all these issues.

ben: Both look good

renato: no feedback from anybody yet

ben: do these document cover all raised issues of the past 2 years?

renato: yes

ivan: who propose the "proposed solutions"?

renato: first an issue is discussed then the editor changes the document and if a major change
... is included this change is communicated to the WG.

ivan: we have a few "to be closed" issues

renato: suggested to give the people from the WG a period until the end of this week to review the two documents

victor: asked to extend this to 2 weeks?

ivan: these documents must go the the Candidate Recommendation state at the start of September.
... this makes him concerned to keep the editing open for 2 weeks.
... what we should decide today: we declare an absolute feature freeze now and correct only typing errors.

ben: underlined: not substantial changes anymore - minor corrections only

benws_: The situation of the Information Model document is quite clear - any comments?

(no comments were raised)

renato: on the Vocabulary document: updated the XML and the JSON-LD

benws_: any bigger changes to XML?

renato: attributes were added and some elements (e.g. consequence) - no major changes

<victor> UPM will only work with RDF exclusively

<Serena> same for INRIA

<benws_> same for TR ...

benws_: Who has implemented XML - AP?

michaelS: could be the case.

renato: could we vote on the Editor's Draft next week?

<ivan> Proposed: Provided the outstanding 5 issues under the "proposed solution" column in the github project are accepted, the group accepts the model/vocab documents as Candidate Recommendation. Deadline is one week from now, ie, 14th of August.

ivan: could we vote on the proposed things today?

<victor> as a last comment... is it still ok if I send during the day an alternative model for the "consequence"? Comparing this to deontic logical frameworks, I find having that the consequence of not fullfilling a Duty can by not means be other Duty.

<victor> if deadline is one week, then it should be ok

benws_: supports victor's comment

victor: will share his comments early this week - to be discussed by the WG

Test Cases

benws_: this is his issue, just returned from holiday but will work on that this week
... will share a proposal to get it discussed by the WG next Monday

ivan: what do we have in terms of test environment?

benws_: agreed - this is not absolutely clear.
... has to check how this sections has to be rewritten.
... will write down evaluation criteria

<victor> the trick is the meaning of "understand"

ivan: the (W3C) director will ask: are there tests regarding interoperability

<victor> agree with ben, "understand=pass test"

benws_: basic issues will be covered but will not go deep into details.
... this is covered by the concept of Profiles - and they will not be tested.

renato: we need to cover the potential different views by creators and consumers of Policies?

ivan: yes
... he would like to see that a party creates Policies and e.g. Thomson Reuters has to understand them in a real case.

benws_: this evaluator should be domain independent?

ivan: yes

benws_: aims at creating truth tables - and an evaluation does not need to fully understand all details.

<victor> +1

benws_: an evaluator will only check what is defined by the IM and a profile but will not cover all possible options - is this approach ok?

ivan: would prefer to see that in writing to review it

<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/test/cr-exit.md

benws_: asked renato to add to the exit criteria what has been changed/added recently.

ivan: a goal is that each feature will be used by two cases
... and the policy should be generated by a different party than the one receiving and evaluating the policy

benws_: we should be careful that Profiles will be different for different business areas - will we have so many parties?
... an issue is: the Core Profile covers only very few terms, e.g. Actions. A Policy without a Profile will not be close to reality.

<victor> i fully agree with Ivan: the more diverse the sources of policies, the richer the testing will be

ivan: clarified: the cross-testing should be done by the end of the CR phase.

List of potential implementers

benws_: the current list is empty

https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/test/implementors.md

ivan: we should divide between receivers and creators of Policies

benws_: do implementers have to be W3C members?

ivan: no

<Serena> +1

benws_: suggested to name them publishers and implementers

<renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#odre

renato: should this be rewritten?

Update on NOTEs

victor: we have some documents which could be moved into NOTEs - any time limit?

ivan: no, NOTES could be published at the end of the WG work - could be in February. Suggested to set a time limit to early December.

benws_: RightsML Profile?

<victor> I would be happy to see these policies, in any case

michaelS: IPTC plans to work on that from September on.

Open Actions

renato: we need a PHP programmer for some features of creating the vocabulary

benws_: went over the Open Actions list
... Action-44 can be closed?

renato: agreed to closing it

<victor> thanks! Hear you by then!

michaelS: regret for next call

<ivan> trackbot, end telcon