- From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 16:37:35 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
Re 2.7 Policy Rule Composition * Now 1: A Policy MAY also be related to Assets, Parties, and Actions at the Policy level, and these relationships apply to all of the enclosing Rules in the Policy. Semantic issue 1a: the first part of the sentence sounds like the policy-level properties used for the Compact Policy - but then comes "enclosing Rules": what Rules are meant by that? E.g. all the related Rules of a Policy? This wording needs clarification. Semantic issue 1b: if "A Policy MAY also be related to Assets, Parties, and Actions at the Policy level, " covers the Compact Policy case this is a contradiction to 2.7.1 as it states "... These shared properties MUST NOT be interpreted as Policy-level properties ...". If the text states that a Policy **relates** to an Asset at the policy-level this establishes a relationship between the Policy and the Asset and makes the Asset a property of the Policy. This needs to be fixed. * Now 2: In order to create the atomic Rules in a Policy, the processing model for policies with multiple Assets, Parties, and Actions includes: Semantic issue 2: this sounds like Assets, Parties and Actions at the policy-level are meant - but as the examples and the processing model shows multiple Assets, Parties and Actions inside a Rule are meant. * Now 3: the processing model wording using " ... then create new Rules ..." Should be 3: "... then **replace the existing Rule by newly created** Rules ..." (Comment: currently the existing Rule would stay.) Re 2.7.1 Compact Policy * Now 1: processing model, item 2: Remove the shared properties declared at the Policy-level Issue 1: why is this action required? 2.7.1 has already defined that any policy-level property should not be interpreted as policy property. And how to _remove_ such properties ... Could be 1: **2. Ignore the shared properties declared at the Policy-level for any further policy processing.** * Now 2: It is RECOMMENDED that compact ODRL Policies be expanded to atomic Policies when being processed for conformance or _exchanged_ for interoperability, to reflect the normative ODRL Information Model. Issue 2a: does that mean a Compact Policy SHOULD only be used inside the company/system of the publisher of the Policy? (... else it is an _exchanged_ policy ...) Issue 2b: does that mean a Compact Policy does not reflect the normative ODRL IM? This needs clarification. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/215#issuecomment-320714703 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 7 August 2017 16:37:40 UTC