Re: [poe] Reviews of ODRL IM - Editor's Draft 3 August 2017

**Re Constraints**

* re 2.6 Constraints
  * Now 1: Constraints are boolean/logical expressions that refines ...
Should be 1: Constraints are boolean/logical expressions that **refine** ... 
  * Now 2: The evaluation of a Constraint is treated as a black box from an external system ...
Could be 2: The evaluation of a Constraint is treated as a black box **outside the ODRL Processor** ...
(Comment: "external system" - external to what? Does Thomson Reuters has to use a Bloomberg system? ;-)
  * Now 3: ODRL Processors MUST check if a Constraint is satisfied at the time of processing the relevant Action, or Party/Asset Collection. 
Should be 3: ODRL Processors MUST check if a Constraint is satisfied at the time of processing the relevant **Rule**, or Party/Asset Collection. 
  * Now 4: ... then the (individual) Asset or Party member(s) - a subset of the Collection - becomes effective for the enclosing Rule.
Could be 4: then the **individual Asset or Party member or multiple of them** - a subset of the Collection - becomes effective for the enclosing Rule.
* re 2.6.1 Constraint Class
  * Now 1: A Constraint class is used for expressions which compare two operands by one operator.
Semantic issue 1: based on that wording the only difference of a Logical Constraint Class is that it may compare more than 2 operands - but that's not the key difference.
Could be 1: A Constraint class is used for expressions which compare two operands which are not constraints by one relational operator.
  * Now 2: The Constraint class can express these contexts  ...
Semantic issue 2: what are "these contexts" ? (In the Constraint section the term context is usually used with Party/Asset collection.)
  * "The Constraint class has the following properties:" 
Now 3: the properties leftOperand, operator and rightsOperand have a mandatory single occurrence but their ranges use plural terms: Left Operand**s**, Operator**s**, right operand value**s**
Should be 3: singular terms (as used for the other properties with (none or) one occurrence.)
  * Now 4: The leftOperand MUST clearly be semantically defined  ... and may show how ...
Should be 4: The leftOperand MUST clearly be semantically defined ... and may **declare** how ...
(Comment: the "how to" is a definition and not a presentation issue.)
* re 2.6.2. Logical Constraint Class
  * Now 1: A Logical Constraint class are expressions for logically comparing two or more operand values - with the operand values being a list of existing Constraints.
Could be 1 (based on the suggestion above): A Logical Constraint class is used for expressions which compare two or more operands which are existing constraints by one logical operator.
  * Now 2: A Logical Constraint MUST have one operand sub-property indicating the logical relationship.
Should be 2: A Logical Constraint MUST have one operand sub-property indicating the logical relationship **of the compared existing constraints.**
  * Now 3: xone - only one of the Constraints MUST be satisfied
Should be 3: xone - only one **and not more** of the Constraints MUST be satisfied
(Comment: the currents definition covers this case: 1 Constraint is satisfied - and 3 others too.)
  * Now 4: Additional operand sub-properties MAY be defined in the ODRL Common Vocabulary [odrl-vocab] or defined by ODRL Profiles.
Should be 4: Additional operand sub-properties MAY be defined by ODRL Profiles.
(Comment: sub-properties have to be defined by a Profile, by the Common Vocab  is not sufficient.)
Follow up 4: the Common Vocab should also be removed from the processing model, item 1.
   * Now 5: The processing model ... 3. The Constraint instances
Could be 5: 3. **These** Constraint instances (Comment: as readers may ask "which Constraint instances")
  * Now 6: NOTE - When Constraints appear ...
Formal issue 6: such "policy-level properties not for the Policy" for Compact Policy are clearly defined there. (See "Properties that MAY be shared include:) Such a clear definition must be added to Logical Constraint Class, using a NOTE is too lightweight.





-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/215#issuecomment-320705997 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 7 August 2017 16:04:13 UTC