RE: POE Requirements: already a draft for a solution?

> sorry, can’t get what’s correct: my assumption or that I’m
> wrong?

The former! However, before any of the requirements makes it on the list 
of final ones, the WG has to first agree on it.
I'm assuming that Renato just wanted to have some more clarification on 
that one (i.e., whether adding a version attribute would suffice or if 
there's actually more to it).

simon

---
DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna

www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys

Am 2016-06-09 09:02, schrieb Michael Steidl (IPTC):
> Renato,
> 
> sorry, can’t get what’s correct: my assumption or that I’m
> wrong?
> 
> Michael
> 
> FROM: Renato Iannella [mailto:renato.iannella@monegraph.com]
> SENT: Thursday, June 9, 2016 8:26 AM
> TO: Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org>
> CC: W3C POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
> SUBJECT: Re: POE Requirements: already a draft for a solution?
> 
>> On 9 Jun 2016, at 16:14, Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> But e.g. the comment on the requirement “Support versioning
>> policies” in the Data Model section is asking “Is this simply a
>> new version attribute on the Policy?”. By my understanding the
>> requirements should describe what POE should deliver but it
>> doesn’t have to show an implementation for that already. Am I
>> wrong?
> 
> Correct. As long as there is a community with that need (and there is
> a good descriptive use case outlining the detail is even better ;-)
> 
> Renato Iannella, Monegraph
> 
> Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working Group

Received on Thursday, 9 June 2016 08:38:36 UTC