Re: [poe] The foggy effective/in-effect terminology

Another detail of the wording of the IM:
* strictly spoken only classes can be "in effect"/"active" and not a property ...
* but we claim in practice "a remedy must be fulfilled". And this reflects what is of interest: not the "in effect"/"active" state of a class as such is of interest but which property forwards this state to a "parenting" class.
* How to write down the fact "the Abc Class which is related by the property xyz is in effect/active":
  * option 1: " ... if the constraint is satisfied then ... " -- strictly spoken a constraint property cannot be satisfied, should we be that strict? This wording reflects what is of interest.
  * option 2: "... if the Constraint is satisfied then  ..."  -- that's a nice coincidence: the Constraint Class is the type of only the constraint property - this helps to infer what property inherits the satisfaction. But it causes problem if we would write "... if the Duty of a Prohibition is fulfilled ..." - in this case the ODRL user has to browse the Prohibition Class specification to find out that only the remedy property is of type Duty. My view on that: this is close to being wrong - at least confusing.
  * option 3: "... if the Constraint related by constraint is satisfied then ..." -- covers class and property, is more verbose but formally more correct than option 1 and keeps the focus on what is of interest.

I invite the WG to take a decision - but then the agreed option should be used consistently.

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

Received on Sunday, 27 August 2017 16:30:03 UTC