Re: About a more strict definition of Constraint

> On 9 Nov. 2016, at 20:48, Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org> wrote:
> 
> So the two options for solving that issue I see are:
> a) defining a strict template for Names of Constraints, it must include what exactly is constrained, and in which way, should also include the required condition parameters
> b) splitting the Name into a constraint subject and a constraint term (and the definition of the term should include the required condition parameters)


Lets do a)

We did a good review of the Perm/Prohib/Duty actions last year (thanks to IPTC :-)

So perhaps now is a good time for a detailed review of each Constraint wording?

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