- From: simon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:05:40 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
the point is that 1) this requirement is not always true -> > The Duty class also has these additional requirements: > > + The assignee MUST have the ability to exercise the Duty Action. > + The assignee(s) of the Duty MUST satisfy the Duty. as the assignee is not always the party that has to do a duty 2) and that one is too restrictive -> > If there are no assigner and/or assignee properties declared in the Duty, then these functional roles will be the same as those declared in the referring Permission. as it would require using assignee/assigner from the referring Permission even if alternative party functions are used in the duty (e.g. informingParty/informedParty) => both of them can be addressed by (1) substituting assignee by something along the lines of "the party obligated to perform the duty" and (2) s/"no assigner and/or assignee properties"/"no party properties"/ -- GitHub Notification of comment by simonstey Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/269#issuecomment-337167392 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 09:05:43 UTC