- From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:27:07 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
Hmmmm, does this conflation express the information model correctly? I doubt. The current Constraint defintion says - http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#constraint - Constraints express mathematical terms with two operands and one operator - name: a name that identifies the left operand of the operation (REQUIRED) - operator: an operator function (REQUIRED) - rightOperand: the right operand of the operation (REQUIRED if no rightOperandReference) The requirement regarding expressing this definition is that is must clearly state what is a constraint's left operand and right operand and what is the operator. Example 3 in the Vocab/Encodings document - http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#sc-example3 - shows: odrl:constraint [ a odrl:Constraint ; odrl:count 1 ; odrl:operator odrl:lteq ] I interpret these triples as I see/read them: - thisConstraint isA ODRL-Constraint - thisConstraint hasOperator "Lower Than or Equal" - thisConstraint hasNumericCountOfExercisingTheAction*) "1" *) Predicate based on the "clarified" definition of odrl:count, see https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Constraints The last triple asserts that the numeric count for exercising the action is equal to 1. I think this assertion is wrong as it must be less than 1! This kind of expression doesn't reflect what the left and the right operand is - these assertions get lost. It's only an ODRL internal interpretion that the predicate of the a triple has to be matched against the object of the triple by the object of the triple with the hasOperator predicate. I think such an RDF would reflect the definition by the Information Model unambigously: odrl:constraint [ a odrl:Constraint ; odrl:leftOperand odrl:count odrl:rightOperand 1 ; odrl:operator odrl:lteq ] A bit more verbose but telling explicitly what should be told. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/79#issuecomment-266380564 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 12 December 2016 09:27:11 UTC