Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

<ivan> Chair: Ben

<scribe> scribe: michaelS

<scribe> scribenick: michaelS

last week's minutes

RESOLUTION: minutes are fine

benws_: no objection, took them as passed

github project issues

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

renato: got some in the past days
... got some issues by email
... main one is the Rule Processing 2.6.8 in the IM

<renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#rule-process

renato: Has changed the text of this section - and michaelS has suggested to add a note about the processing implementation
... should be closed. Is the current phrasing ok?

benws_: came across 2 issues
... ... one is the use of the term Not-/Violated
... the second one: refinements have not role in the Rule Processing

renato: go over the refinement rule

<simonstey> +q

all: discussion can a refinement be checked prior to taking the action of a Permission

benws_: a refinement applies to a Rule

all: discussion about the terminology of rule outcomes

<simonstey> +q

all: should the outcome be Not-/Active or Rule-specific (Not-/Exercisable)

Agreed: If an action is taken as "exercised" its optional refinements must be satisfied.

benws_: only Not/Active is required

<simonstey> +q

michaelS: what is covered by setting the Active state: only the satisfaction of constraints?

benws_: we should not define why a rule is Not-/Active

simonstey: we currently do not consider in the 2.6.8 is if the Rule applies e.g. to a target or an assignee

michaelS: q+

all: discussion about now a Prohibition gets Not/Active

<renato> :-(

<renato> ok

The group went over the examples and the Truth Tables

benws_: Root nodes have different processing rules than nested Duties
... IM example 24 - JSON does not comply with the free text description

<victor> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/242

<benws_> ack

All: discussion about the SHACL for ODRL: shoudl be provided on a page/by a resource which can be edited by all.

<victor> http://odrlapi.appspot.com/

benws_: victor should get in touch with Simon

<Serena> yes, victor, the validator works. Thanks, great work.

benws_: any open issues?

ivan: could be make a strict planning

benws_: next Monday the SHACL should be ready and the Processing Rules should be updated
... I have no more issues in my pocket

ivan: when to issue a request for the Candidate Recommendation?
... when will this group take a vote on the two documents IM and Vocab

benws_: the Evaluator is still an open issue - much of it has been covered at this call

michaelS: covered by what?

benws_: The examples in the IM cover what is defined in the IM

ivan: will the documents be finalized on the 11 September?
... and a vote should be taken.

<victor> s/again/about

ivan: Ben and Renato should look into his draft for the request to be sent to the W3C director
... as a result the request should be submitted on 12 or 13 September - then it will take 2 weeks of internal reviews
... and the final CR will be published by the end of September

<renato> Free Beer ;-)

ivan: this Wg has to define how long the CR period will be.

<victor> http://odrlapi.appspot.com/

ivan: it could be e.g. for 1 month - THEN the implementations have to be presented
... minimum time for a CR is 1 month, then the results of tests need to be considered and integrated