Re: About a more strict definition of Constraint

Hi again,

Once we come up with a conclusion, it would be nice providing a 
non-nomrative piece of pseudo-code or algorithm description informing 
about evaluation of policies...

Víctor

El 10/11/2016 a las 5:34, Renato Iannella escribió:
>
>> On 9 Nov. 2016, at 01:13, Myles, Stuart <SMyles@ap.org 
>> <mailto:SMyles@ap.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I don’t see how it is meaningful to constrain either parties or 
>> targets. In fact, I think it just introduces problems for evaluating 
>> policies.
>
> Stuart, this was an example of the WG *approved* Requirement (see 
> links in https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/59)
>
> We are introducing new features in ODRL and it will make processing 
> more complex.
> As a WG we need to make sure that is what we want to do.
> The use cases for these new requirements not only need 
> implementations, but acceptance by the WG of the impact on implementors.
> Another example is Extended Relations. That is far from trivial.
>
> Personally (not as co-chair and/or monegrpah) I think ODRL *primarily* 
> needs to be updated to make the current language more clear and 
> obvious in semantics (and a few minor tweeks).  Major new features can 
> come in the future based on wider implementation/industry experiences.
>
> Renato Iannella, Monegraph
> Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working Group
>

-- 
Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 91336 3753
Skype: vroddon3