The picture helps clarify what the agreement is!
I would like to add that the target should be “Database X” that Jim
wants to access.
I have modified the picture as follows:
* Within Asset: The asset target should be “Database X”We want siri to
approve that Jim is permitted to access Database X.
* Within Party: There are two parties:Jim and Siri.Jim will speak to
Siri.Siri will either validate or invalidate if Jim can access
Database X
* Within Duty there is an Asssignee:SiriThis indicates that siri will
make the decision regarding if Jim’s voice command will be granted
* Within Action: siri: validateSpeaker.Siri listens to Jim speak and
determines if the person speaking is really Jim
To generalize from the specific person “Jim” to any person, replace
“Jim” by “personY” in both the Party box and the Refinement box.
What do you think?
Regards,
-Jim
On 6/3/2022 4:59 AM, Renato Iannella wrote:
> Could we add “Siri” (the party) as the Assignee in the Duty action?
>
> R
>
>> On 3 Jun 2022, at 19:23, Simon Steyskal<simon.steyskal@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> But if the assignee is Jim, wouldn't (since not indicated otherwise) the duty of validating his voice be his obligation too? Rather than Siri having to validate his voice before acting on his commands..
>>
>> In the end it probably depends on who the intended target audience for the policy is.. Should they be used to guide the operation of voice systems, or should they be used to tell users what they have to do in order to be able to use the systems.
>>
>> br, simon
>>
