RE: Action vocabulary - final draft after call on 28 August

I think "compensation" has two axes:

-          What the value the compensation should/must be

-          By which thing the compensation should be executed

 

The axes could be in sync - but they don't have to be:

 

Example 1:

Value = 1,000 EUR

Compensation Thing = paid money

 

Example 2:

Value = 1,000 EUR

Compensation Thing=barter

 

Example 3:

Value = 500 points

Compensation Thing=loyality points

 

Example 4:

Value = 1,000 EUR

Compensation Thing=loyality points

 

We could consider this specification:

-          The Compensation Thing is expressed by the value (term) of the
Constraint name

-          The compensation value is expressed by operator, rightOperand,
dataType and unit

 

If this specification is ok we could drop the "pay" duty from my point of
view.

 

Michael

 

From: Renato Iannella [mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:14 AM
To: ODRL Community Group
Subject: Re: Action vocabulary - final draft after call on 28 August

 

 

The updated draft also includes a new (duty) action called "compensate"
which is a broader concept than "pay" - in that anything can be used as
"compensation" (eg barter, loyalty points...)

 

The original "pay" (duty) action is a now child concept (narrower) than
"compensate".

 

To use the "pay" duty, you typically use the "payAmount" constraint to
indicate the payment amount.

In general, some constraint must be used to indicate the "compensation"
amount/type/value.

 

Hence, you could use the new "compensate" duty action with the "payAmount"
constraint.

 

Should we then deprecate "pay" in favour of the broader "compensate" ?

 

Cheers...

Renato Iannella

Semantic Identity

http://semanticidentity.com

Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206