- From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 13:52:07 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
re 2 above: I'm afraid that "must not" doesn't work. See example 16: the AssetCollection is defined in a persistent way but its members may change on a hourly base (or even shorter) - and ODRL doesn't have any influence on that.
I suggest to add to the definitions of both Collections: "**As a result of applying refinements to a ...Collection it may not include any members but this does not make to the ...Collection invalid.**"
... the Rule has only a target or assignee with no members. That may be not nice for the assignee but this has no (negative) formal impact on the rights expression.
Re "some narrative": reading the latest wording I think only the Prohibition needs some added narrative:
* Permission Class: looks ok, tells what allows to take its action - and what not.
* Prohibition Class: a statement about what is the impact of fulfilled remedies on the "infringed" state is missing. e.g. "... must be fulfilled**, in this case the the Prohibition is not infringed** {anymore}."
* Duty Class: looks ok, tells what fulfils it - and what not.
* Constraint/Logic Constraint Classes: look ok, describes what satisfies a Constraint and what not - could we set "satisified" and "not satisifed" in bold as it is done for the keywords in the classes above?
By that - and by my view - the final state of an evaluation of a Rule sub-class could be expressed by a single term as listed by @riannella above in https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/226#issuecomment-328742047 which definitely helps with the Truth Tables of the Evaluator. _Agreed?_
--
GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/226#issuecomment-328859644 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2017 13:52:00 UTC