[poe] Issue: Specifications of includedIn and implies need improvements marked as To Be Closed

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

== Specifications of includedIn and implies need improvements ==
I refer to Asset in the Information Model Editor's draft of 12 June - http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#asset

**Re includedIn**

* For Policy, Asset and Party classes the properties are explicitly listed, this should be done for `includedIn `and `implies `of the Action class too.
* Definition of `includedIn`, starting with "The purpose of the includedIn ...": "the latter" and "the former" should be replaced by explicit statements and the unclear statement about conflicts with other actions should be dropped. 
E.g. "The purpose of the includedIn property is to explicitly assert that the semantics of the referenced instance of an other Action encompasses (includes) the semantics of this instance of Action." ... and add "This implies that a permission or prohibition of an encompassing Action is inherited by all actions with an includedIn relationship."
* Is `includedIn `transitive? Has "print" to assert `odrl:includedIn odrl:present` and `odrl:includedIn odrl:use` or is `odrl:includedIn odrl:present` sufficient as long as `odrl:present odrl:includedIn odrl:use` is asserted? I'm in favour of making it transitive, this needs to be added to the definition.
* The statement "... if play is permitted in a Policy and use is prohibited in the same Policy, ..." is only true if the mentioned Permission and Prohibition share the same target Asset - and different target Assets in (different Rules of) a Policy are allowed.
* The underlying link of "Policy Conflict Strategy" has a typo.

**Re implies**

* The statement "For Actions that form dependencies (eg Action X requires Action Y)  ..." is misleading: also `includedIn `sets relationships between instances of Action. 
* My suggestion: start the paragraph with "The `implies `property asserts that this instance of Action implies that the other instance of Action is not prohibited." ... and add "`implies `can be used for Action instances which have no `includedIn `relationship."
* The example should be "For example, if a `share `Action implies explicitly the `distribute `Action, then if `share `is permitted in a Policy and `distribute `is prohibited in the same Policy - and both actions apply to the same target Asset - this would cause a conflict in the Policy. If an implied other action is not prohibited this does not cause a conflict."

See https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/192

Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2017 00:37:41 UTC