12:22:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:22:48 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/08/14-poe-irc
12:22:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:22:50 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:22:52 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
12:22:52 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:22:53 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:22:53 <trackbot> Date: 14 August 2017
12:23:02 <ivan> chair: renato
12:23:48 <victor> victor has joined #poe
12:24:09 <renato> present+
12:24:33 <renato> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170814
12:24:35 <simonstey> present+
12:24:43 <renato> Regrets: michael
12:27:00 <ivan> present+
12:27:24 <CarolineB> CarolineB has joined #poe
12:30:25 <CarolineB> present+ CarolineB
12:30:27 <Linda_B> Linda_B has joined #poe
12:34:00 <renato> victor/linda - will u join the teleconf call?
12:34:57 <victor> present+
12:35:18 <victor> I can scribe if nobody does
12:35:34 <benws> benws has joined #poe
12:35:44 <benws> present+
12:35:46 <victor> scribe: victor
12:35:50 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/07-poe-minutes
12:36:02 <victor> topic: approve last meeting minutes
12:36:17 <victor> decision: approve last meeting minutes
12:36:37 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/projects/1
12:36:43 <victor> resolved: approve last meeting minutes
12:37:03 <victor> topic: github issues
12:37:07 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/209
12:37:19 <victor> subtopic: Consequence/Remedy, issue 209
12:37:58 <victor> renato: there has been a first proposal (2 weeks ago) and a second one (1 week ago)
12:38:28 <victor> renato: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Duty_Relations
12:38:57 <victor> simon: it is faster to talk than to speak
12:39:52 <victor> simon: failure is more general and there may be ambiguity
12:40:40 <victor> simon: the fact that there is a permission with a non-fulfilled constraint does not imply that there is a prohibition on that constraint
12:40:43 <victor> q+
12:41:00 <victor> s/constraint/permission
12:41:26 <victor> simon: it is a owa/cwa
12:42:31 <victor> simon: the verification of chain of implies requires verifying not only not the existence of prohibitions but also the existence of permissions whose constraints are not satisfied
12:42:51 <victor> q+
12:43:40 <victor> sabrina sees a difference between remedy and consequence
12:45:59 <ivan> ack victor
12:46:22 <renato> victor: spec worded as follows:
12:46:26 <victor> Constraints must be checked by processings system at the time of executing the relevant action. If the constraint is satisfied (ie the logical expression is true) then the action becomes valid for the enclosing Rule. If the constraint is not satisfied, then the action is not valid for the enclosing Rule.
12:46:39 <simonstey> +q
12:47:56 <renato> victor: agree on diff between conseq/remedy
12:49:04 <simonstey> "For a Rule to become effective, all of it's Constraints MUST be satisfied and any applicable relationship to a Duty MUST be fulfilled."
12:49:46 <victor> simon: the term "valid" is confusing to me.
12:50:17 <renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/
12:52:05 <victor> renato: failure as a superproperty of consequence and remedy
12:52:22 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
12:52:22 <Zakim> Present: renato, simonstey, ivan, CarolineB, victor, benws
12:52:24 <Zakim> On IRC I see benws, Linda_B, CarolineB, victor, Zakim, RRSAgent, renato, simonstey, ivan, trackbot
12:52:48 <benws> q+
12:53:53 <victor> victor: if a permission has a constraint a failure, then the rule fire upon failure becomes in effect.
12:54:05 <victor> simon: this means an addition verification to be done
12:55:46 <victor> victor: yes, an additional verification is needed. we need generality
12:56:01 <victor> simon: yes, this is not incompatible
12:57:33 <victor> benws: the current wording of (??) is now unclear
12:57:37 <renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#duty-policy
12:57:40 <victor> victor: I wished I could represent Prohibition(failed)-->permission, Prohibition(failed)-->obligation, Prohibition(failed)-->Prohibition2, every possible combination
12:58:26 <victor> benws: the difference between remedies and consequences can be better stated in that section
12:59:05 <benws> q-
12:59:11 <victor> q+
12:59:11 <benws> ack s
12:59:12 <simonstey> q-
13:00:15 <victor> victor: (example with matrix of 3x3)
13:00:59 <victor> simon: i agree with a superproperty, but we leave it to custom implementations.
13:01:47 <victor> simon: we can leave failure as rule-to-rule property, whereas remedy and consequence as kept more precise.
13:02:14 <victor> renato: consequence and remedy remain as they are, failure is introduced as a property from rule to rule.
13:02:30 <victor> linda_b: this has to be well explained to non-technical users
13:03:18 <victor> resolved: integrate the agreement reached today
13:03:34 <victor> renato: this was the last issue before closing a version
13:03:52 <victor> topic: Moving toward CR
13:04:22 <victor> topic: test cases, exit criteria
13:05:44 <victor> benws: (shows screen with a matrix) The evaluator needs to make checks as those shown in the screen
13:07:33 <victor> simon: (explains an example)
13:07:58 <victor> simon: someone fulfills a duty (payment), having permission to download a dataset during 2017
13:08:20 <victor> simon: in 2018, the duty is fulfilled but the constraint is not
13:08:48 <victor> benws: interpretation is not so evident: is the rule in effect?
13:09:07 <victor> simon: it is not
13:09:12 <victor> benws: ok
13:09:52 <victor> benws: Example 16
13:11:05 <victor> simon: the consequence is not triggered in this example
13:11:16 <victor> benws: but the evaluator does not understand the constraints in the duty
13:12:35 <victor> ping
13:12:51 <victor> benws: Example 17
13:12:54 <renato> (we are still speaking?)
13:13:10 <victor> benws: we have now two duties
13:13:26 <victor> benws: etc. etc.
13:13:34 <victor> benws:  IMPORTANT: is this what we expect from an evaluation?
13:13:41 <victor> victor: yes
13:13:50 <victor> simon: +1
13:14:06 <victor> simon: in addition, evaluators have to deal with conflicts, etc.
13:14:16 <victor> benws: we have (or will have) examples with conflicts
13:15:03 <victor> benws: given the set of columns (marks a column in the screen)... is the permission in effect or not?
13:16:24 <victor> benws: If you believe I am doing well, I will continue with this job.
13:16:40 <victor> renato: any comment?
13:16:43 <victor> (silence)
13:16:52 <victor> renato: please Ben, go ahead
13:17:51 <ivan> q+
13:17:54 <victor> renato: what else would be needed to go towards CR?
13:17:56 <victor> q-
13:18:25 <victor> ivan: are we clear on how implementations will be done?
13:18:51 <victor> renato: every implementor will say "this is conformant because it passes A, B, C..."
13:18:58 <simonstey> earl!
13:19:22 <victor> ivan: there is no practical support at W3C to help with the conformance tests.
13:19:51 <victor> simon: the benefit of earl is manifested when there are many implementors
13:20:01 <victor> simon: not practical for a handful of implementors
13:20:28 <victor> ivan: we need implementations not coming from academic institutions
13:20:46 <renato> https://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-model/all.html
13:20:54 <simonstey> +q
13:21:21 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-test-suite/
13:21:24 <victor> renato: is that table created manually or automatically?
13:21:36 <victor> ivan: somebody must be responsible for compiling that
13:21:38 <simonstey> -q
13:22:57 <victor> benws: we have to focus on the ODRL interoperability layer, whereas the actual interpretation of constraints is domain specific.
13:25:06 <simonstey> +q
13:25:46 <victor> ivan: understand. some partners produce their own policies that others should be able to undestand. I wonder about INRIA (for example) producing policies ... till what extend do they have to be understood?
13:25:50 <simonstey> q- ivan
13:25:50 <victor> benws: the core model is slim
13:26:33 <victor> ivan: even if using a profile, the core of the policy should be understood (if it is valid)
13:27:28 <victor> benws: the disctinction between validating and evaluating is there: anybody can validate anything, evaluate requires knowing the meaning of constraints and duties
13:28:05 <victor> simonstey: we can check validity, yes.
13:28:53 <victor> simonstey: we want to find inconsistencies, etc.
13:29:16 <simonstey> https://github.com/simonstey/ODRL-SHACL-Shapes/wiki/SHACL-Shapes-for-validating-ODRL-Policies
13:29:32 <victor> ivan: you will have SHACL validators for S+
13:29:51 <victor> simonste: the wiki shows some examples of shapes
13:30:11 <victor> ivan: this should be part of the CR
13:30:43 <victor> renato: ben will have a lot of work to have the tables ready
13:30:52 <victor> renato: comments in github will be appreciated
13:31:10 <victor> benws: I will write updates on the wiki
13:31:39 <victor> renato: AOB?
13:32:12 <victor> renato: i hope we have next week an almost closed version
13:33:17 <renato> RRSAgent, draft minutes V2
13:33:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/14-poe-minutes.html renato
13:33:25 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:33:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/14-poe-minutes.html ivan
13:33:32 <ivan> trackbot, end meeting
13:33:32 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
13:33:32 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been renato, simonstey, ivan, CarolineB, victor, benws
13:33:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
13:33:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/14-poe-minutes.html trackbot
13:33:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
13:33:41 <RRSAgent> I see no action items