- 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