Re: [poe] IM wording for classes and their relationships

1) I think the main reason we don't explicitly state it (just as the Annotation spec does not: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/) is that the ODRL IM is **more** than just the RDF model. We do use Class and property terms.

2) I've added "Class" to all the main headings for consistency, and the first para uses "Class", then after that just using the Class name with Capital first letter seems ok? (see Annotation spec too ;-)

3) Under the IM Figure we state:
**The ODRL Information Model includes the following classes:**

So the reader should know that for the rest of the document?

4) We explicitly state they are all properties, like in:
**The Asset class has the following properties:**
So wouldn't adding "property" after each and every term get repetitive?

5) They are both the same Constraint class. They only differ in the object of their left/right operands.

6) thanks ;-)

7) Don't forget that 2.7 introduces "short-cuts" but the rest of the IM talks about the normative model - that is the end-process of un-shortening the short-cuts in 2.7.

Is there any parts of the normative IM that have unclear cardinalities?

8) Changed to "related to"

9) see 8)

commit: 5d3410270c50b9ccf3f5411be869956a551d60a8


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by riannella
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/200#issuecomment-311256169 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 27 June 2017 05:22:58 UTC