Re: [poe] On 2.6.8 Rule Active State Processing

Review part 2:

Some details, my suggested changes in bold:
1. 2.6.2 : That is, the remedy property asserts a Duty that must be fulfilled if the **action of the** Prohibition is exercised
2. 2.6.3: the Duty class definition is missing the role of consequence - which should be done similar to the Prohibition class. Add: **If its action has not been exercised all consequences must be fulfilled to fulfil the Duty. (Note: only Duties referenced by duty or obligation properties may use consequence properties.)**
3. 2.6.3: the definition of the consequence property swaps subject and object of the triple:
A Duty MAY have none, one or many consequence property values of type Duty only when the Duty is **referenced by** a Rule with the duty or obligation properties.

Re @riannella 's statement about describing "states":
As I said in part 1 the IM defines that instances of the Rule sub-classes return a value: a e.g. constraint property of the Rule Class is defined as "A Rule MAY have none, one or many constraint property _values_ of type ..." and this raises the question: what is the value of the referenced instance of the xxx Class?
This applies to the Permission, Prohibition and Duty Class as they are referenced with a property by different "parenting" classes.
To define specific names for the returned values (= states) makes sense to me, makes the reading, keeping track and understanding easier.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/226#issuecomment-328787411 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2017 08:52:14 UTC