<scribe> scribe: michaelS
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2018/01/15-poe-minutes
renato: acceptes as nobody raised a con
<renato> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/odrl-pr/results
renato: as of today: 14 supports and 5 abstains
ivan: all the members of this WG we have
expected to vote have voted
... he does not expect too much movement anymore
renato: is this number of pro votes satisfactory?
ivan: yes
... will send out the request for a final recommendation next week
... at which date should the final recommendation be published?
<renato> https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/290
ivan: pointed at some open issues
<renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#json-ld
<renato> http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld
ivan: the link http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/ODRL22.jsonld
should stay as http URL, others may be changed to https, primarily in
the examples
... went over the POE issues on Github: https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues
... formal next steps: 1/ request ok for the publication by the Director
2/ request the publication of the recommendation
ivan and renato: when to set the date
<renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/bp/
victor: unfortunately he and Ben have made no progress on editing this document
renato: is editing this document doable by next Monday, 5 February?
victor: will get in touch with Ben to clarify that
ivan: if the 5th does not work then we need
a stable date for finalizing the Best Practices
... the publication of the Recommendation should be done in February
2018
victor: yes, he will clarify that with Ben
ivan: there is an open issue: is it difficult to express the W3C license for this document as ODRL Policy?
<renato> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document
victor: guesses this will be a simple Policy, should be doable
ivan: this would be great
<victor> http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/W3C1.0
<victor> http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/W3C1.0.ttl
victor: shared a link to a first attempt to ODRLize such a license
renato: would appreciate to have time to look into such a W3C rights policy
renato: will remind Simon Stey to update this document
renato: the required action is to reactivate
the ODRL Community group
... some of this group have joined this POE WG, now they are invited to
go back
... how to deal with an errata page?
ivan: this has changed at W3C - he will provide a pointer to an errata page in the new style
<ivan> example errata page: https://www.w3.org/annotation/errata/
ivan: the essential change is: the Github
Issues feature can be used for that purpose
... there are different levels of errata: simple ones like typos can be
fixed instantly, severe errata have to solved by a new WG
renato: Could the ODRL Community suggest changes to minor issues to the W3C?
ivan: yes, as long as the changes are not essential
michaelS: the ODRL Community group should maintain a list of ODRL Profiles
renato: agreed, the ODRL CG could create a Profile for a small group of people too.
ivan: it would be great if the ODDRL CG would commit to such task, this POE WG cannot request that the CG does a specific work
renato: yes, he will be behind that
ivan: it would be great to see actions on that soon as this should be clarified untilt he Rec is published
Linda B: will there be regular calls of the ODRL CG?
renato: we had in the past ad hoc meetings to solve raised issues
Linda B: suggest to hold a kick-off meeting for these post POE action by the ODRL CG
renato: agreed to that - as he is also chair of the ODRL CG
renato: suggested next Monday, 5 February
ivan: this is required only if issues are raised in the final voting process, of if we have updates of NOTEs
renato: will send out if required an invitation on Friday, 2 February