- From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:17:31 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
re 2: looks good, thanks. re 3: currently (Mon, 30 Jan, 8:15 GMT) we can't see that in the Vocab document as it is still the 27 January verson. re 4: after a conversation with @simonstey I understand the approach "in RDF a constraint is an entity with an identifier, this way it can be referrenced from anywhere". This formal approach is ok. But leaning towards a practical use, see my example above, I consider: C3 may constrain the use of asset A1, while C12 constrains the use of asset B99 - can these constraints be combined flawlessly, will a party have access to them if the permissions P1 and P2 are in different policies ? I suggest that at least in a Best Practice document such constraint references across rules and across policies should be discussed. re 6: hmm, I'm afraid this may be a wrong change: can the value of the right operand change over time? At least for the "hard wired" rightOperand variant with in fact literal values (and not the rightOperandReference variant) this cannot be the case. So why shouldn't people look at the value of the status and not of right operand? I think the issue with my extracted wording "the current value of the left operand" is that it should tell "the current value generated from the definition of the left operand". E.g. the current count of actions, the current position or size of an asset. Isn't that what should be provided by status? And as a result I think the last paragraph before the examples should tell this: _In case of a Constraint expression, the status provides the current value generated from the definition of the leftOperand. For example, a count constraint could have a rightOperand value of 10, and a status of 5 as the constrained action has been exercised currently 5 times. In case of a Constraint Relations expression, the status attribute MUST NOT be used._ -- GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/94#issuecomment-276002050 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 30 January 2017 08:17:38 UTC