Re: [poe] Constraint specs currently do not cover logic operation on constraints

re 1: thanks

re 2: my proposed definition might need a slight adjustment (in bold):
 "it**s free-text definition** SHOULD include the entity it constrains
 and how its value for a comparison has to be retrieved/generated."
This sentence was explicitly a goal for the revisions of the existing 
Names of Constrant/Left Operands in the ODRL vocabulary: to explicity 
say if this constraint applies to the asset or the action or ... etc

re 3: Would the spelling Constraint Relations (= both uppercase) help 
the reader to keep track?

re 4: to clarify by an example: permission P1 has the "old" 
constraints C1, C2 and C3, Duty D1 has the  "old" constraints C11 and 
C12. And permission P2 has a Constraint Relation combining C3 and C12 
- is this referencing across the boader of a Rule ok or do things get 
too complex? And as constraints may have GUIDS it would be possible to
 refer a constraint in a different policy ...

re 5: as you have limited some operands to be used with Constraints 
Relations only the XML processing becomes easier.

re 6: I understand the intention. But is the wording "the current 
value of the left operand" clear? If a constraint has `"leftOperand": 
"odrl:spatial"`  then I guess many would interpret `"odrl:spatial"` as
 the value of left operand.

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

Received on Friday, 27 January 2017 08:07:11 UTC