Re: [poe] consistency of definitions

No reason in particular ;-)

Actually, perhaps at the Rule level we should say:

A Rule MUST have an Asset via the **relation** property.
A Rule MUST have an Action via the action property.
A Rule MAY have one or more Parties via the **function** property.

Then state:

The abstract relation and function properties MUST be represented as explicit types of these properties in the subclasses of Rule.   (**better wording here**)

Then we can state in the Permission/Prohibition/Duty sections what these explicit types must/my be?



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by riannella
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/171#issuecomment-300359659 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2017 02:55:34 UTC