- From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:30:05 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
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 https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/225#issuecomment-325209020 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 27 August 2017 16:30:03 UTC