- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:29:48 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
iherman has just labeled an issue for https://github.com/w3c/poe as "CR review": == the assignee(s) of the Duty MUST satisfy the Duty. == http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#duty: > A Duty MAY have **none** or one assigner and/or assignee property values (of type Party) for functional roles. (Other function sub-properties MAY be used.) [...] > 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. http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#duty-perm: > 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. 1) assignee of the duty must satisfy == assignee of the duty must exercise the duty action? 2) who is considered to be the "assignee of the duty" in the following two examples -> ```turtle <http://example.com/policy:1> a odrl:Policy ; odrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ; odrl:target ex:asset_9898 ; odrl:action odrl:reproduce ; odrl:assigner ex:Alice ; odrl:duty [ a odrl:Duty ; odrl:action odrl:inform ; odrl:informingParty ex:Bob ; odrl:informedParty ex:Alice ; ] ] . ``` ```turtle <http://example.com/policy:2> a odrl:Policy ; odrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ; odrl:target ex:asset_9898 ; odrl:action odrl:reproduce ; odrl:assigner ex:Alice ; odrl:assignee ex:Bob ; odrl:duty [ a odrl:Duty ; odrl:action odrl:inform ; odrl:informingParty ex:Chad ; odrl:informedParty ex:Tom ; ] ] . ``` ---- https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-ensureExclusivity: > Definition: To ensure that the Rule on the Asset is exclusive. Note: If used as a Duty, the assignee should be explicitly indicated as the party that is ensuring the exclusivity of the Rule. what? See https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/269
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2017 10:29:38 UTC