[poe] Issue: Clarify the Party cardinality for Perms/Prohibs marked as Editorial

riannella has just labeled an issue for https://github.com/w3c/poe as 
"Editorial":

== Clarify the Party cardinality for Perms/Prohibs ==
>From simon:

The current spec states (comments inline; similar for prohibition):

> 3.4 Permission
> 
> The Permission entity indicates the Actions that the assignee is 
permitted to perform on the associated Asset. 

It is not required for perm/proh to have any party assigned.

> In other words, what the assigner (supplier) has granted to the 
assignee (consumer).

I would argue that not every assigner/assignee has the role of a 
supplier/consumer.

> [...]
> Party: the Permission MUST refer to one or more Party entities 
linked via the Role entity (see Section 2.3.1) (OPTIONAL)

Is it possible to combine MUST and OPTIONAL?

See https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/69

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2016 00:49:20 UTC