Re: About a more strict definition of Constraint

> On 9 Nov. 2016, at 01:13, Myles, Stuart <SMyles@ap.org> wrote:
> 
> I don’t see how it is meaningful to constrain either parties or targets. In fact, I think it just introduces problems for evaluating policies.


Stuart, this was an example of the WG *approved* Requirement (see links in https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/59 <https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/59>)

We are introducing new features in ODRL and it will make processing more complex.
As a WG we need to make sure that is what we want to do.
The use cases for these new requirements not only need implementations, but acceptance by the WG of the impact on implementors.
Another example is Extended Relations. That is far from trivial.

Personally (not as co-chair and/or monegrpah) I think ODRL *primarily* needs to be updated to make the current language more clear and obvious in semantics (and a few minor tweeks).  Major new features can come in the future based on wider implementation/industry experiences.

Renato Iannella, Monegraph
Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working Group