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

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