W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-poe-wg@w3.org > December 2016

Re: Policy improvement

From: Renato Iannella <renato.iannella@monegraph.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 17:57:03 +1000
To: W3C POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DCDBCF71-4816-47F6-84F5-40EDBDA13FFE@monegraph.com>

> On 9 Dec. 2016, at 15:44, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> wrote:
> 
> 1) If assets/parties are referred to at policy level, would it make sense to introduce some sort of policy set concept for grouping multiple policies?

Can you show us a use case/example?

> 2) what about duties?

Duties are always in the context of a Permission. The assignee (defined in the Perm or at the Policy level) will still be responsible for undertaking the obligation (unless it is defined in the Duty itself).

> 3) could we then finally get rid of that weird "policy is subclassOf asset" relationship [1]?

We define Policy as a subclass of Asset, so that Duties (for example) can refer to Assets (that are Policies) for such obligations as next/review/Policy...


Renato Iannella, Monegraph
Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working Group
Received on Sunday, 11 December 2016 07:57:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 11 December 2016 07:57:41 UTC