RE: One by one, but not in bulk

Hmm, my own feeling is that the UCR should contain UCs that lead to requirements (giving us a clear criteria for inclusion) but we can pick from a wider set (and the mail archives will be a useful source) for the primer. 

Simon, Michael - what is your sense?

Ben

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
> Sent: 07 September 2016 08:31
> To: Renato Iannella; W3C POE WG
> Subject: Re: One by one, but not in bulk
> 
> This is helpful, thank you.
> 
> Should I still write the use case? IMO, where we have cases like this
> that ODRL can handle already, it's about explanation in the Primer, but
> how are we going to capture these now, if not in the UCR?
> 
> Phil
> 
> On 07/09/2016 08:22, Renato Iannella wrote:
> >
> > And if we add:
> >   odrl:prohibition
> >      odrl:action odrl:extract;
> >
> > We should then support Phil’s use case.
> >
> > Renato Iannella, Monegraph
> > Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working
> Group
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-

> 3A__philarcher.org&d=CwIDaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-
> GVjSLm9hvvvzvGv0FLoWSRuCSs5Q&r=GQ6xvz2BG1vCgiGGeLHdL1qJLbLUqYG6W19eFBlz
> nzDGH3wjzyriGVJemENTKsgx&m=gNgdg5fNZlxzyr0FrPumBt3ggvTKea1yDdLggSux7UU&
> s=7MRHUGCCB7S2iCF5nwQMLHRfZ3dSgIZFRYXWik_xkqM&e=
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1

Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2016 07:50:33 UTC