12:18:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:18:40 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/10/09-poe-irc
12:18:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:18:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:18:45 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:18:45 <trackbot> Date: 09 October 2017
12:19:00 <ivan> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20171009
12:19:16 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: agenda 2017-10-09: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20171009
12:19:29 <ivan> Chair: Ben
12:27:10 <michaelS> michaelS has joined #poe
12:27:51 <michaelS> present+
12:28:01 <renato> present+
12:29:16 <CarolineB> CarolineB has joined #poe
12:29:20 <LindaB> LindaB has joined #poe
12:29:39 <LindaB> present+
12:29:39 <CarolineB> present+ CarolineB
12:30:24 <victor> victor has joined #poe
12:30:26 <victor> Hi!
12:31:14 <ivan> present+
12:31:28 <victor> present+
12:31:39 <benws> benws has joined #poe
12:31:52 <benws> present+
12:33:44 <ivan> scribenick: CarolineB
12:33:48 <CarolineB> Topic: approvae minutes
12:33:54 <Sabrina> Sabrina has joined #poe
12:33:59 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #poe
12:34:03 <CarolineB> Minutes have been approved
12:34:08 <ivan> s/approvae/approve/
12:34:20 <CarolineB> Topic: Actions arising
12:34:36 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/48
12:35:37 <CarolineB> victor: Has only just read the email. Has been updating the list of normalisation steps.
12:36:46 <CarolineB> michaelS: The Json-LD issue: There is a strange display of blank notes. I tranformed ttl into Json-LD.
12:36:58 <CarolineB> ... The result had "undefined" in some places
12:37:19 <victor> +q
12:37:24 <CarolineB> ... but it worked on the playground so I raised an issue in GitHub
12:38:13 <ivan> q+
12:38:33 <CarolineB> ... turns out there was a known issue in latest release (it delivers blank nodes not nested as we have it) - with advice on how to fix
12:39:17 <victor> The nesting problem can be seen with the examples at http://odrlapi.appspot.com/. This page shows the results of the automatic transformation
12:40:04 <CarolineB> benws: is the nesting issue display or critical?
12:40:16 <CarolineB> michaelS: icing on the cake
12:40:26 <victor> q-
12:40:32 <benws> q?
12:40:45 <ivan> ack ivan
12:41:05 <CarolineB> ivan: lets close the issue
12:42:11 <CarolineB> ... we cannot always rely on other tools to create the display we want
12:43:11 <benws> q?
12:43:22 <CarolineB> benws: issue 49 - I will write commentary
12:43:25 <renato> hang on....
12:43:26 <victor> ok
12:43:50 <michaelS> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/49
12:45:22 <CarolineB> benws: we've lost renato - so leave issues 51 and 52 for now
12:45:30 <CarolineB> Topic: testing regime
12:45:35 <ivan> s/issues/actions/
12:46:01 <CarolineB> renato is back!
12:46:29 <renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#metadata
12:47:46 <simonstey> mist retrieve and process is always a bit problematic
12:47:49 <benws> q?
12:47:57 <simonstey> s/mist/must/
12:48:06 <victor> q+
12:48:30 <CarolineB> renato: shodl we get the policy pointed to, or just stop processing
12:48:40 <CarolineB> s/shodl/should
12:49:08 <CarolineB> victor: says we don't have an action we can do
12:49:26 <simonstey> we had the same issue with profiles
12:49:47 <CarolineB> renato: when you first get the policy its not in your knowledge base - do you add it or do something else?
12:50:09 <CarolineB> victor: se we should get it and add it?
12:50:24 <CarolineB> renato: perhaps get the new one and replace the current one with it
12:50:41 <simonstey> then we wpuld have to describe how "getting" works
12:50:50 <CarolineB> benws: so does it invalidate the permissions in the old policy
12:51:06 <simonstey> or what should happen if getting fails
12:51:17 <CarolineB> Topic: action 52
12:51:17 <benws> q?
12:51:24 <benws> ack v
12:51:24 <victor> q-
12:51:41 <renato> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Validation
12:52:16 <CarolineB> renato: this is about parts - we've added it - asks victor to confirm
12:52:52 <CarolineB> victor: changes need to be made as per emails sent
12:53:17 <benws> q?
12:53:26 <CarolineB> ...for the party collection
12:54:06 <CarolineB> michaelS: so new test cases should be added to report?
12:54:10 <CarolineB> yes
12:54:28 <CarolineB> Topic: test regime page
12:54:51 <benws> q?
12:55:05 <CarolineB> benws will add documentation. Some concepts seem to be in that shouldn't be - but I am trying to understand further
12:56:25 <CarolineB> ... question about multiple assets, multiple parties
12:56:43 <michaelS> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I2-qht3KRjkIvwdvsfkAMq4AJ0FXjn3Wl5mH-tPe5bs/edit?usp=sharing
12:56:45 <benws> q?
12:57:00 <CarolineB> victor: it would be possible but validation would be difficult
12:57:12 <CarolineB> Topic: test case spreadsheet
12:57:35 <CarolineB> michaelS: this is for implementors. walks us through it
12:57:49 <benws> q?
12:58:18 <michaelS> https://iptc.org/temp/ODRL-CR-ImplementationReports.html
12:58:58 <benws> q?
12:59:32 <CarolineB> michaelS: and I have created some python for the HTML output
12:59:37 <benws> q?
12:59:48 <CarolineB> ... should put it up somewhere
12:59:56 <CarolineB> renato: so we can make the google doc public soon
13:00:10 <renato> https://w3c.github.io/poe/test/implementors
13:00:48 <benws> q?
13:01:13 <michaelS> Short URL for the implementation report - please use that one: https://goo.gl/iXnonW
13:01:15 <CarolineB> renato: implementors on call should add their names to the doc
13:02:16 <CarolineB> ivan: must remember to fill the missing test cases before publication
13:02:30 <CarolineB> Topic: Semantics of consequence property
13:02:35 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/267
13:03:20 <benws> q?
13:03:39 <CarolineB> renato: summary - the consequence property has to be satisfied if duty is not satisfied, but later we say its an *additional* duty and hte original duty has to be satisfied
13:03:49 <CarolineB> s/hte/the
13:04:58 <CarolineB> ... michael pointed out that the original duty may sometimes be unsatisfiable (e.g. missing a date gone past)
13:05:01 <Sabrina> q+
13:05:17 <CarolineB> ... need to get group agreement on actual intent
13:05:57 <CarolineB> sabrina: I see it as - there are duties and there are consequences if they are not fulfilled
13:06:08 <CarolineB> ... e.g. you are fined if you don't get permission of a data subject
13:06:22 <CarolineB> ... paying the fine doesn't mean things are ok necessarily
13:06:47 <michaelS> q+
13:07:02 <CarolineB> ... I think consequences are necessary but its not clear how they ;ink to the duty
13:07:18 <renato> q+
13:07:23 <CarolineB> benws: so fulfilling a consequence doesn't mean the duty is complied with
13:07:48 <CarolineB> sabrina: even if consequence is complied with, the original duty still holds
13:07:57 <CarolineB> renato: that's what I meant to say
13:08:00 <simonstey> its kinda the same as with remedies
13:08:09 <simonstey> you are still prohibited to do xyz
13:08:34 <benws> q?
13:08:34 <simonstey> even if you have fulfilled the remedy
13:08:47 <CarolineB> sabrina: agrees
13:08:57 <ivan> q+
13:09:03 <ivan> ack Sabrina
13:09:04 <renato> q-
13:09:11 <CarolineB> renato: so duty must be satisfied as well as constraint
13:09:11 <ivan> ack michaelS
13:09:19 <CarolineB> michaelS: approach is correct
13:09:34 <CarolineB> ... but how do we write this down using odrl?
13:09:44 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/275
13:10:27 <CarolineB> ... returns to issue when time limit is specified for a duty but has gone past
13:10:59 <CarolineB> ... do we say - evaluation of each duty is needed
13:11:17 <benws> q?
13:11:22 <CarolineB> ... many duty actions may be expressed by users
13:11:41 <CarolineB> ivan: is this an editorial change or more?
13:12:48 <CarolineB> michaelS: I think its that we have contradictory statements and we must choose one to follow
13:13:46 <CarolineB> benws: is the issue resolved by the clarifications from serena and renato?
13:14:09 <CarolineB> michaelS: yes, but..
13:14:17 <CarolineB> ... current processing rule doesn't work well for me
13:14:25 <benws> q?
13:14:44 <CarolineB> renato: so first part is editorial - we can just add "also"
13:15:11 <benws> Ivan - are you still on the queue?
13:15:35 <CarolineB> ... other issue is how we say that a duty *must* be satisfied even if it can no longer be
13:15:40 <benws> q+
13:16:25 <Sabrina> q+
13:16:45 <ivan> q- later
13:16:45 <ivan> q?
13:16:49 <michaelS> q+
13:16:51 <LindaB> q+
13:16:59 <CarolineB> ... for the IM to come up with all possible ways to satisfy duties in the future will be tough given all the different scenarios that people will come up with
13:17:04 <ivan> ack benws
13:17:07 <CarolineB> benws: agrees
13:17:12 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #poe
13:17:27 <CarolineB> ... we can't build a logic to describe the world
13:17:42 <CarolineB> ... lets keep the simplicity of odrl as now
13:17:52 <CarolineB> .. and handle this as an implementation issue
13:18:05 <benws> ack b
13:18:07 <ivan> q- ivan
13:18:11 <ivan> q?
13:18:15 <ivan> ack Sabrina
13:18:17 <ivan> q+
13:18:22 <CarolineB> sabrina: agrees. this has happened in other cases.
13:18:43 <CarolineB> ... generally people change the duty to make it satisifiable
13:19:06 <CarolineB> ... the application should highlight if something is not satisfiable
13:19:46 <CarolineB> michaelS: doesn't want a strict requirement to review the original duty
13:20:40 <CarolineB> ... for interoperability we should have clear guidelines about evaluation
13:20:46 <benws> q?
13:20:47 <renato> q+
13:21:00 <simonstey> not sat in one or all possible interpret.
13:21:12 <CarolineB> ... we coudl get different results if evaluators choose to include or ignore the duty with a consequence
13:21:18 <CarolineB> s/coudl/could
13:22:04 <CarolineB> LindaB: I feel a duty must be satisfied. In Sabrina's example the duty had to be changed by a human
13:22:13 <benws> q?
13:22:17 <CarolineB> ... so the original duty no longer worked
13:22:22 <ivan> ack michaelS
13:22:35 <benws> ack l
13:22:43 <benws> ack i
13:22:45 <ivan> https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#revised-cr
13:23:04 <CarolineB> ivan: the process document says - if its non editorial we have to make a revised CR
13:23:27 <CarolineB> ... we might be able to do it without a call, but we will certainly have to go through the process
13:23:39 <CarolineB> ... so its very urgent
13:24:16 <renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/projects/2
13:24:18 <CarolineB> ... we also still have 10 open issues
13:24:38 <CarolineB> ... if we go back we need to make sure these are resolved
13:26:04 <CarolineB> renato: could the solution be - a small narrative change - with an editorial note to say you may have to look at impossible duties and get them relaxed
13:26:37 <benws> q?
13:26:42 <benws> ack r
13:26:43 <renato> q-
13:27:55 <CarolineB> michaelS: where a duty cannot be fulfilled (e.g. the out of time one) - wants to repeat the original duty without a constraint if constraint means it can't be fulfilled
13:28:30 <simonstey> imo yes
13:29:04 <CarolineB> ... ideally people should consider what they are asking for when they set up a duty and if they expire - then plan for what happens then
13:29:29 <Sabrina> q+
13:29:37 <CarolineB> renato: so this isn't just an editorial change
13:30:01 <CarolineB> ivan: we'd need to extend the CR time
13:30:22 <CarolineB> ivan: and the 10 open issues must be clsed
13:30:32 <CarolineB> s/clsed/closed
13:30:52 <CarolineB> sabrina: we still need to agree.
13:31:35 <CarolineB> ... clarifies
13:31:49 <CarolineB> ... doesn't like making the duty part of the consequence
13:31:50 <benws> q?
13:31:58 <benws> ack S
13:32:57 <CarolineB> sabrina: I think if you have a duty then you must just fulfill it - a consequence is more informational
13:33:28 <CarolineB> benws: isn't it wise to say that this is implementational via the black box
13:34:21 <benws> q?
13:34:34 <Sabrina> i agree with Ben that pushing the Obligation into the Consequence it a hack
13:35:49 <Sabrina> s/it/is
13:36:03 <michaelS> Sabrina: again: how should issue https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/275 raised by simonstey be resolved?
13:36:39 <simonstey> narrative as renato proposed
13:37:33 <simonstey> making people aware that they have to be aware that the original duty might need to be updated
13:37:36 <michaelS> you add a narrative to a Rule with a possibly unresolvable base Duty?
13:37:41 <simonstey> to keep it satisfiable
13:38:21 <renato> Proposal: Update the ODRL IM to state that to satisfy the duty (that triggers a consequence) MAY require implemenations to relax constraints (as an editorial change)
13:38:28 <michaelS> Who has to update: the maker of the Policy of its receiver?
13:38:58 <simonstey> theres no issue with duties having no refinements at all
13:39:08 <renato> Proposal: Update the ODRL IM to state that to fulfill the duty (that triggers a consequence) MAY require implementations to relax constraints (as an editorial change)
13:39:36 <renato> +1
13:39:41 <benws> +1
13:39:46 <CarolineB> +1
13:39:50 <Sabrina> +1
13:39:52 <ivan> +1
13:39:59 <michaelS> -0.5
13:40:07 <simonstey> +1
13:42:05 <benws> Victor - will you vote/
13:42:07 <benws> ?
13:43:07 <LindaB> +1
13:43:20 <renato> Accepted: Update the ODRL IM to state that to fulfill the duty (that triggers a consequence) MAY require implementations to relax constraints (as an editorial change)
13:43:23 <victor> +1
13:43:24 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
13:43:24 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2017/10/09-poe-irc#T13-43-24
13:43:27 <benws> q?
13:43:44 <benws> q?
13:44:09 <CarolineB> ivan: further pleading about closing open issues
13:44:30 <CarolineB> ... please
13:45:12 <CarolineB> ... goes back to editorial draft. make new section with changes since CR
13:47:53 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:47:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/09-poe-minutes.html ivan
13:48:23 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
13:48:23 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
13:48:23 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been michaelS, renato, LindaB, CarolineB, ivan, victor, benws
13:48:31 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
13:48:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/09-poe-minutes.html trackbot
13:48:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
13:48:32 <RRSAgent> I see no action items