See also: IRC log
hi!
<renato> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170911
<renato> Chair: renato
i can scribe
<scribe> scribe: victor
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2017/09/04-poe-minutes
<michaelS> scribenick: victor
RESOLUTION: approve last meeting's minutes
<renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#rule-process
renato: the hottest issue is the processing
rule section
... ben has been proposing tables (or truth tables) with in-out
... the meaning of "active non active" has been discussed
... ...specially in the context of permissions prohibitions and
obligations
michaelS: I have responded to Ben's comments on Friday, no further counter-answer
https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/254
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Evaluator
renato: I have some problem with reading the evaluator table, as I dont understand specially the outcome of the evaluation
benws_: the goal is to get the state (active/non-active)
renato: what is the meaning of "an active rule"?
benws_: active permission is I can exercise
it
... active prohibition is that I am bound to obey that; obligation the
same
michaelS: (about example 22)
...michaelS: I have heard different versions in different calls about
this example
benws_: there is a distinction betweens root-level duties and refinements on rules
michaelS: I think have we have the same opinion, I understood it differently in the last call
benws_: constraints in a rule define whether it is active or not, but refinements only "help to".
renato: the truth table needs narrative text
benws_: I think we should limit to the test
cases, not give further info to implementors
... Our message to the implementors is: read the im, do the
implementation, and pass the tests
renato: do you mean we dont need to speak about rule processing?
benws_: that's it. that section is not needed.
michaelS: We have working long on the
Section 2.6.8
... the section has been discussed on github, not finding opposition
... The spec says "an action may include a refinement" but the impact
itself on the refinement is not explicitly given
... so the truth tables are going too far
benws_: but without the tables, there is no interoperability
ivan: this is the 4th meeting we have on
this. my impression is that there is no consensus in the WG.
... and given that we are in the last minute, we are should take out
whatever is conflictive
benws_: ...but if we have disagreement in
that section, then we don't have guidedance enough
... I would to have agreement in the tables
... because this is a warranty for interoperability
... we need to define "what is a correct implementation"
ivan: we have a vocabulary supported by the
semantics of RDF. This is an RDF vocabulary
... do we want to have additional semantics to what RDF gives me? and if
yes, what is?
renato: example?
... "the IM is the semantics"
... we may remove 2.6.a, putting back some sentences taken from other
sections in the spec
... what does it mean "a prohibition" is not active?
benws_: that nobody is bound by that
prohibition.
... example of temporal restriction: the prohibition is active on
Tuesday, but not on Wednesday
renato: so it means "only applies on a Tuesday"?
michaelS: if you violate the prohibition, you have a remedy to fulfill. And then is when the conflict appears.
benws_: if the disagreement is only this
small case, we can go further.
... but if we have further disagreement, then we cannot go to CR
victor: I agree with the tables
renato: i have troubles with the terms themselves
ivan: do we have a plan?
CarolineB: active=should be processed, otherwise=can be ignored?
benws_: yes
CarolineB: why dont we choose another word instead of "active/not active"? (just as binary of that, but with other words)
benws_: the previous effort was "in effect / not in effect"
michaelS: Complexity arises from constraints being fullfilled/non-fulfilled, which is a sort of active/non-active state too
benws_: which is the target audience?
CarolineB: it is me
benws_: no! the implementors
CarolineB: but I'll speak to developers
benws_: implementors = developers
LindaB: policy makers must understand the documents and speak to developers
ivan: is the spec correct or no?
... do the truth tables reflect what there is in IM?
... we have 4 months to write a Primer to describe a more human readable
text
... are we in the state of going to IM?
... I do not care about the terms (this can be discussed later) but I
care
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Validation#Normalization
victor: the 75 policy examples in http://odrlapi.appspot.com/ are very useful
CarolineB: ... is there agreement on the IM ?
benws_: We only fight on example 24
CarolineB: permitted/non-permitted as the equivalent to active non-active in Permissions.
ivan: editorial changes are possible but
large ones are not recommended if we go further with the process
... the reading of some specs is incredibly complex, and they can be
supplemented by Primers (but we should avoid that if possible)
... benws_ said "example 24 is a small issue" but I see too many issues
in the github
<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/projects/1
victor: sI open about 6-8 of them, and all
of them "minor"
... but there is no tag for "minor"
renato: we pay attention to the project table instead
<renato> All open issues to be closed
ivan: we cannot go to the director with this amount of open issues
michaelS: what is the impact of constraint
and refinement? this is perhaps what is missing in the "constraint
property"
... ...this is the section that perhaps can be improved instead.
victor: why don't we have another call Ben/Renato/Michael right now or tomorrow? (and others, i.e., I would like to join as well)
ivan: this change would lead to a second CR
michaelS: it is not a crucial change, it is just "clarifying"
benws_: we make explicit what was implicit
ivan: this is a very fine line
renato: we did take out a couple of sentences from the spec in order to create the "rule processing" section. so it would be simply reverting changes.
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Validation
benws: why don't we meet on Thursday?
<CarolineB> good for me
victor: please review the list of normalization transformations and validations that I have extracted from the specs and implemented. https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Validation
michaelS: what is the schedule?
... what about Thursday?
ivan: if it is on Thursday, there must be
quorum
... at least a number of people should be there
... besides, I cannot join (even if my presence is unimportant)
... please inform me on the time if you meet
LindaB: 8.30 New York time is fine
ivan: and dont forget closing the issues
<renato> todo: remove section 2.6.8 and add some narrative back into the specific sections
ivan: how much time do we need for the CR?
... the test period, I mean
RESOLUTION: remove section 2.6.8 and add some narrative back into the specific sections
<renato> Next call: Thursday 14 Sept 12:30 GMT
ivan: and on Friday, emails have to be sent
renato: AOB?
michaelS: who will implement the changes in the last resolution?
renato: I will
michaelS: please make sure it is ready by Thursday morning
victor: 22.30 at Renato's, 8.30 Linda's and Victor, 13.30 Ben, 14.30 Michael and Simon
renato: what shall we do with example 22
benws_: oh, no it is correct
michaelS: please read the draft mails
<ivan> trackbot, end telcon