- From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 08:07:05 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
re 1: thanks re 2: my proposed definition might need a slight adjustment (in bold): "it**s free-text definition** SHOULD include the entity it constrains and how its value for a comparison has to be retrieved/generated." This sentence was explicitly a goal for the revisions of the existing Names of Constrant/Left Operands in the ODRL vocabulary: to explicity say if this constraint applies to the asset or the action or ... etc re 3: Would the spelling Constraint Relations (= both uppercase) help the reader to keep track? re 4: to clarify by an example: permission P1 has the "old" constraints C1, C2 and C3, Duty D1 has the "old" constraints C11 and C12. And permission P2 has a Constraint Relation combining C3 and C12 - is this referencing across the boader of a Rule ok or do things get too complex? And as constraints may have GUIDS it would be possible to refer a constraint in a different policy ... re 5: as you have limited some operands to be used with Constraints Relations only the XML processing becomes easier. re 6: I understand the intention. But is the wording "the current value of the left operand" clear? If a constraint has `"leftOperand": "odrl:spatial"` then I guess many would interpret `"odrl:spatial"` as the value of left operand. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/94#issuecomment-275610051 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 27 January 2017 08:07:11 UTC