- From: simon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 05:50:55 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
> 1. We use RFC2119 for consistency AFAIK (and others, e.g., @philarcher1 or @iherman please correct me if I'm wrong) using a RFC2119 key word like MUST NOT for a statement like `A Prohibition indicates that the Policy expresses an Action that MUST NOT be performed,` would require any implementation using ODRL to be actually able to verify whether prohibited action is indeed not performed in order to conform to the standard. Can we require that? > 2. Example 21 is an Offer and should not define an Assignee yes, but how does this align with `a Duty states that a certain Action MUST be executed by the Party with the Role Assignee`? Does that mean you cannot define duties for any policy type that does not require an assignee? what happens if there's a duty defined for a permission that is missing an assignee? > 3. Examples aid in better understanding the specification. If there are ones that are incorrect or could be updated, then please indicate. I'm def. not against having examples in the spec.. I just think that having informal ones like `Alice must pay 5 Euros in order to get the Permission to play abc.mp3.` at the very beginning is not necessary & confusing, esp. when proper examples are provided later on anyway. > 4. We plan to have the ODRL Best Practices NOTE to include more examples. perfect! again, I'm not against the actual examples (i.e., the JSON-LD ones) -- GitHub Notification of comment by simonstey Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/95#issuecomment-275985029 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 30 January 2017 05:51:02 UTC