[Minutes] 2016-05-23

The minutes of today's call are at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/05/23-poe-minutes and in text form below.

Thanks to Jo for scribing.

We resolved that:

1. We'll use short names (cf numbers) to refer to Use Cases.

2. The WG aims to publish its two FPWDs and its Use Case doc 
simultaneously at the end of June.

Meanwhile, there are 2 weeks to add new use cases.


3. We also noted that when you complete an action, you should mark it as 
Pending Review in tracker and the WG will then review and close the 
action as appropriate.

There *will* be a meeting next Monday for which Ivan will act as team 
contact as I must send my regrets.

Phil.



   Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference

23 May 2016

    [2]Agenda

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160523

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/23-poe-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Ivan, Renato, michaelS, victor, jo, Brian_Ulicny,
           Serena, benws2, smyles, sabrina

    Regrets
           Mo, Simon, caroline

    Chair
           Renato

    Scribe
           jo

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Last meeting minutes
          2. [6]Formal Semantics Note Editors
          3. [7]Name of deliverables
          4. [8]use cases
          5. [9]open actions
          6. [10]any other business
      * [11]Summary of Action Items
      * [12]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <renato> Any volunteers to Scribe? Or we take the next on the
    list: [13]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Scribes

      [13] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Scribes

    <scribe> scribe: jo

Last meeting minutes

    <renato> [14]https://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes

      [14] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/16-poe-minutes

    PROPOSAL: Approve minutes from 16 May

    <phila> +1

    <Serena> +1

    <Brian_Ulicny> +1

    RESOLUTION: Approve minutes from 16 May

    RESOLUTION: Approved minutes from 16 May

Formal Semantics Note Editors

    renato: simon, Sabrina, Victor have volunteered to be editors

Name of deliverables

    renato: Carry over from last week, Action was on Ben

    benws: I failed to make a proposal

    renato: carry over to next week

use cases

    michaels: Phila changes some things this morning

    phila: I did two things, 1 add a use case from Euro Data Portal
    ... they have had to look through all licenses attached to data
    ... they have made a grid of what inter operates with what
    ... I made that into a requirement
    ... key thing is to be able to express "this interpretation is
    a view of person x" i.e. provenance is important
    ... not a legal claim
    ... I also made a trivial amenment to Stuart's use case

    michaels: Stuart's use case - use case 07 has been added
    ... first item also appears in many others
    ... "supports ODRL 2.1"
    ... so we need to collect the current ODRL requirements

    <michaelS> Requirements page
    [15]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements

      [15] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Requirements

    michaels: should this be done in the ODRL community or here?

    (silence)

    <phila> [16]ODR:L Reqs?

      [16] 
https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/wiki/Call_for_requirements_towards_an_ODRL_Linked_Data_profile

    phila: I have found a page that has a call for requirements for
    a linked data profile
    ... a lot of material there
    ... however there is no existing document that collects all
    ODRL requirements

    renato: there so is

    <victor>
    [17]https://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/2.0/WD-v2r
    eq-20050213.html

      [17] 
https://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/2.0/WD-v2req-20050213.html

    renato: after 1.1 we put together requirements based on
    feedback
    ... we used that as a baseline

    phila: need something in a stable place ...
    ... the phil test is "can I read this and assess whether POE
    meets those requirements"

    renato: this is not a normal working group
    ... yes, we start from the baseline of ODRL 2.1

    <james> Apologies for joining late!

    renato: meets community requirements
    ... not sure whether going through the requirements for 2.0 2.1
    gets us anywhere
    ... better to move on to new stuff
    ... don't think that everything that is supported is in the
    requirements

    phila: it's the delta we need to identify

    renato: it's a given that 2.1 requirements are supported
    ... michael and ben, we havea collection of use cases on the
    Web site and we need to end up with a note
    ... are you happy with the way it's going, what input do you
    need

    benws: need more use cases and I need to add some. Likely to be
    iterative in that some will suggest others.
    ... after that I can feed back to group what the delta is

    <renato> [18]https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/

      [18] https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/

    renato: looking at what others in W3C have done
    ... is this something that we want to copy?

    phila: doubt we need to produce one that long

    <renato> [19]https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-ucr/

      [19] https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-ucr/

    phila: don't expect there to be 50 use cases, but the structure
    is very good, in-document hyperlinks are auto generated
    ... so less work than you might think

    benws: we have discussed having a primer "how ODRL can solve
    your rights management issues"
    ... can the use case morph into a primer?

    renato: current ODRL has "Scenarios" to help the reader
    understand what problem is being solved

    <michaelS> [20]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open

      [20] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/open

    michaels: I looked at open actions page and there are some use
    case actions in there
    ... people whould close actions if they have done it

    phila: I m leaving my actions open as I am still talking

    ACTION-7?

    <trackbot> ACTION-7 -- Benedict Whittam Smith to Provide use
    cases on financial data -- due 2016-04-18 -- OPEN

    <trackbot> [21]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/7

      [21] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/7

    jo: if you think you have done your action, mark it as pending
    review
    ... then on the next call it can get closed during the next
    call

    <phila> [22]Use Case

      [22] 
https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases#POE.UC.03_Published_article_with_embargoed_dataset

    ACTION-4?

    <trackbot> ACTION-4 -- Phil Archer to Write use case from VRE
    project about time limited restrictions and metadata -- due
    2016-04-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW

    <trackbot> [23]https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/4

      [23] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/track/actions/4

    phil: I have completed action-4

    <benws2> +1

    <phila> close action-4

    <trackbot> Closed action-4.

    renato: any other use cases you want to discuss on this call

    benws: want to understand the point victor made about adding
    additional information

    victor: I was requested to provide additional info, but need
    more info from editors as to how to do this

    michaels: I have raised some thing responding to victor

    renato: victor can you get back to michaels

    victor: yes I did

    michaels: then I asked more questions

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about numbering

    phila: trivially, we are putting numbers on the use cases,
    which is nice, but they get transferred across to documents
    which turns out weird and confusing
    ... let's use the not numbering
    ... or we could refer by name

    jo: surely better not to number things since it makes it more
    difficult to change order (i.e. name them)

    renato: give every use case a short name
    ... two three words at most

    <michaelS> Supports short names

    <victor> +1

    <benws2> +1

    PROPOSAL: we use short names to refer to use cases on both wiki
    and in the document

    <phila> +1

    <renato> +

    <james> +1

    <ivan> 0

    <smyles> +1

    <sabrina> +1

    <michaelS> +1

    <Brian_Ulicny> +1

    <renato> +1

    RESOLUTION: we use short names to refer to use cases on both
    wiki and in the document

    renato: back to use case analysis
    ... anything more from the editors or anyone else

    michaels: may deadline is "in doubt"

    renato: june?

    michaels: more realistic

    <phila> W3C isn't going to worry about one month delay at this
    stage. Later stages, yes, but not yet.

    PROPOSAL: New deliverable date for use cases is end June

    <Serena> +1

    <james> +1

    <phila> +1

    <benws2> +1

    <michaelS> +1

    <Brian_Ulicny> +1

    <ivan> +1

    <renato> +1

    <sabrina> +1

    <smyles> +1

    RESOLUTION: New deliverable date for use cases is end June

    phila: if we are able to publish use cases end june, then so
    much the better
    ... if we can add the first drafts of the other docs
    ... then we have baseline and delta
    ... same day publication of all three docs

    <benws2> +1

    renato: agree
    ... we will publish all three end of June, give the community
    some idea of where we are heading

    phila: end of June is latest it can be done as summer hols kick
    in

    renato: any moratoria or something?

    phila: no

    michaels: then we need a cut off date for use cases
    ... we wanted them in April. Some are still missing, so we need
    them early June otherwise they won't be included

    renato: agree

    phila: actually we can't publish exactly the last week in June,
    but we would in 1st week of July

    <phila> +1 to Michael's deadline suggestion

    renato: so back to michael's point, deadline for submission of
    use cases is June 6

    benws: can't guarantee that any use case that comes in after
    then will make the first draft document

    renato: any more on use cases?

open actions

    renato: we already looked at them

any other business

    renato: tpac is coming, if you can come please update your
    status
    ... a "fun week" worth coming!

    <phila> [24]TPAC

      [24] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Attending_F2F1

    phila: also if you can't go please also fill in your info
    ... to help with logistics

    <Brian_Ulicny> -1

    <smyles> -1

    <michaelS> +1

    <sabrina> +1

    STRAW POLL: who can come next week?

    <phila> -1

    <james> 0

    -1

    <Serena> +1

    <renato> +1

    <michaelS> +1

    <sabrina> +1

    <smyles> -1

    phila: gingoistic comment of some kind

    renato: next week's call will go ahead

    [meeting closed]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [25]Approve minutes from 16 May
     2. [26]Approved minutes from 16 May
     3. [27]we use short names to refer to use cases on both wiki
        and in the document
     4. [28]New deliverable date for use cases is end June

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 23 May 2016 13:04:49 UTC