- From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:00:32 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
@riannella re your comment: 1. We need to define a relationship expressing "this LeftOperand can be used for the semantic refinement of that Action instance" - e.g. odrl:toBeRefinedAction 2. I agree, to let a profile maker apply such a relationship the 3.3. ODRL Profile Mechanism must be changed. 3. We could outsource this decision, but I'm not convinced that this will be done properly. 3.1. this may cause problems with interoperability: profile A defines odrl:count should be used with a Rule constraint, profile B defines odrl:count should be used with an Action refinement. And a Policy must refer to both profile A and profile B by design reasons. What should the implementer do? 3.2 A logical issue is, it was as I recall raised by @simonstey, that a refinement cannot be satisfied by its own. Our frequently used example constrains the odrl:compensate by an odrl:payAmount of some bucks. Can the Constraint "payAmount 50 EUR" be not-satisfied? Simon said relevant for the logic of the Rule is that the action is exercised **with** the refinement and not without the refinement. Only if the action is exercised with satisfying the refinement it is logically "exercised". By that I'm not sure if all the LeftOperands can be defined for a use with Rule constraint or with Action refinement by the thoughts of a profile maker. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/282#issuecomment-347189478 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 27 November 2017 14:00:34 UTC