Re: [poe] Define Atomic and Compound Constraint as subclasses

> I've been talking about odrl:andSequence above: it's **Range** should be Constraint.
>
> If we create two constraint classed also the **Domains** of all operators in the Core and the Common Vocabulary must be set according to our split up above - currently the **Domain** is not shown in the HTML page of the Vocabulary **but in exists in the Turtle.**

if `odrl:andSequence` is used as value of `odrl:operator` as in:

```json
{
    "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld",
    "@type": "Offer",
    "uid": "http://example.com/policy:88",
    "permission": [{
        "target": "http://example.com/photo.jpg",
        "assigner": "http://example.com/org/fifa",
        "action": "distribute",
        "constraint": [{
                "leftOperand": "http://example.com/policy:88/C1",
                "operator": "andSequence",
                "rightOperand": "http://example.com/policy:88/C2"
            }],
    }]
}
```
it has neither a `rdfs:range` nor `rdfs:domain`

we could state, however, that if the operator is `odrl:andSequence`, values of both `odrl:leftOperand` and `odrl:rightOperand` must be constraints.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by simonstey
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/206#issuecomment-314090655 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 10 July 2017 12:28:05 UTC