Re: [poe] 3. ODRL Information Model

> 1. We use RFC2119 for consistency

AFAIK (and others, e.g., @philarcher1 or @iherman please correct me if
 I'm wrong) using a RFC2119 key word like MUST NOT for a statement 
like `A Prohibition indicates that the Policy expresses an Action that
 MUST NOT be performed,` would require any implementation using ODRL 
to be actually able to verify whether prohibited action is indeed not 
performed in order to conform to the standard. Can we require that? 

> 2. Example 21 is an Offer and should not define an Assignee

yes, but how does this align with `a Duty states that a certain Action
 MUST be executed by the Party with the Role Assignee`?  Does that 
mean you cannot define duties for any policy type that does not 
require an assignee? what happens if there's a duty defined for a 
permission that is missing an assignee?

> 3. Examples aid in better understanding the specification. If there 
are ones that are incorrect or could be updated, then please indicate.

I'm def. not against having examples in the spec.. I just think that 
having informal ones like `Alice must pay 5 Euros in order to get the 
Permission to play abc.mp3.` at the very beginning is not necessary & 
confusing, esp. when proper examples are provided later on anyway.
 
> 4. We plan to have the ODRL Best Practices NOTE to include more 
examples.

perfect! again, I'm not against the actual examples (i.e., the JSON-LD
 ones)

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by simonstey
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/95#issuecomment-275985029 using your
 GitHub account

Received on Monday, 30 January 2017 05:51:02 UTC