[poe] Clarify/Revise outlined semantics of Extended Relations

simonstey has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/poe:

== Clarify/Revise outlined semantics of Extended Relations ==
I've some concerns with the outlined semantics of Extended Relations 
as defined in Section 6.1 [1].

For example, for Permissions and Prohibitions it reads as follows:

**Permission**
> OR The related party may perform any (at least) one of the Actions
> AND   The related party MUST perform all of the Actions
> XOR   The related party MAY perform only one of the Actions

1. I would argue that by granting someone the permission to perform a 
certain action does NOT imply that respective party MUST actually 
perform permitted action. The Assignee is permitted to do it, but 
doesn't have to.

**Prohibition**
> OR The related party MAY NOT perform at least one of the Actions
> AND   The related party MAY NOT perform all of the Actions
> XOR   The related party MAY NOT perform only one of the Actions

1. There is no definition of "MAY NOT" in RFC 2119 (afaik).
2. Apart from (1), "MAY NOT" doesn't reflect the intended semantics 
of, e.g., AND-ed Prohibitions (imho). E.g., if someone is prohibited 
to neither _print_ nor _display_ a certain asset, that person MUST NOT
 perform actions _print_ AND _display_ on a certain asset. (cf. SHOULD
 NOT)

[1] https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#extended-relations
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/45 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 17 October 2016 09:15:15 UTC