Re: [poe] consistency of definitions

> No reason in particular ;-)

I know :D 

> A Rule MUST have an Asset via the relation property.

That's not true for Duties: 

>A Duty **MAY** have a target Asset on which the agreed Action MUST be performed. 

> The abstract relation and function properties **MUST be represented as explicit types of these properties** in the subclasses of Rule. (better wording here)

I really like the "explicit types of these properties" part! other parts of the spec should be adapted accordingly..

e.g. in the Duty section:

> If no explicit Party function is specified as assignee or assigner of the Duty, the Parties with the respective **functional roles** are taken from the referring Permission. Other **function roles** for Party MAY be used for Duties (for example, Compensated Party or Tracking Party).

```turtle
<http://example.com/offer:02> 
    a odrl:Policy;
    odrl:permission [
        a odrl:Permission ;
        odrl:target <http://example.com/asset:9898> ;
        odrl:action odrl:reproduce ;
        odrl:duty [
                a odrl:Duty ;
                odrl:action odrl:pay ;
                odrl:assignee ex:Bob ;   
                odrl:constraint ex:c1 
 ] 
    ] .
```

`ex:Bob` is defined as asignee of the Duty, is  `ex:Bob` a _Party function_?

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by simonstey
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/171#issuecomment-300753416 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 11 May 2017 10:47:51 UTC