- From: simon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 05:59:11 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
> @simonstey the tripwire of 2. is: it is not required that a used AssetCollection must list all of its "parts" in a policy. Therefore at the time of processing a Policy the processor does not know exactly if this asset thing thing has other Assets claiming they are a partOf it. that's why we shouldn't adopt the Open World Assumption for evaluating/processing policies. otherwise, you also wouldn't know whether a policy is really linked to all of its rules, a rule is really listing all of its assignees, assigners, etc. > Yes, that is correct. We can't really do anything about that...can we? sticking to CWA for policy evaluation, i.e. everything that's not explicitly stated does not exist. ------------------- fwiw, following SHACL shape can be used to check whether an asset conforms to the requirements of single assets (i.e., not of type AssetCollection and not partOf another Asset) ```turtle odrl:SingleAssetShape a sh:NodeShape ; sh:targetNode ex:partB ; # replace ex:partB with the asset you want to check sh:not [ sh:class odrl:AssetCollection ] ; sh:property [ sh:path odrl:partOf ; sh:maxCount 0 ; ] . ``` -- GitHub Notification of comment by simonstey Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/195#issuecomment-311261029 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 27 June 2017 05:59:17 UTC