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

re @riannella 's changes in the IM document of 10 August 2017 - thank's for all what has been done:

**cardinality wording**
I personally see no real difference between "MUST have one and MAY have more" and "MUST have one or more".
BUT let's use a common wording: all the Policy sub-classes define now "MUST have one or more permission ..." while the Policy Class still defines "MUST have one and MAY have many permission ..."

**Policy Class - profile**
The RDF for a policy with 2 profiles is:
    odrl:profile <>, <>  .  
As shown in my previous posting this is an example for a predicate/property with a "... or more" cardinality.  A Policy has also in e.g. JSON only one "permission" property but an array of values and the permission has the cardinality  "one or more". Exactly the same applies to profile.

**extended cardinality due to Policy Rule Composition rules**
The added para "Note: The above property cardinalities reflect the normative ODRL Information Model. " looks good.
BUT: the referenced section "Policy Rule Composition" doesn't make a clear statement about that syntactic sugar. The section starts with the sentence "A Policy MAY be related to multiple Rules, and each Rule MAY be related to multiple Assets, Parties, Actions, Constraints, and Duties." The first part "A Policy ... multiple Rules" reflects the formal cardinality, the second part widens the formal cardinality of Action and Asset function target without any further notice.
This needs to be clearly indicated: ... multiple Rules, and **the Policy Rules Composition permits each Rule MAY be related to multiple Assets, Parties, Actions, Constraints, and Duties. This extends the cardinality of the action and the target property.**

**re Policy Conflict Strategy**
My note was only a verbose "ok".

GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 10 August 2017 07:49:20 UTC