Re: About a more strict definition of Constraint

> On 10 Nov 2016, at 05:23, Renato Iannella <renato.iannella@monegraph.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 9 Nov. 2016, at 00:54, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> I realize this is very close to what you write; I just do not understand why changing any structures by moving the domain of constraints on Action/Name. Just extending the current domain of odrl:constraint seems to be the least disruptive thing to do…
> 
> 
> The motivation was to make it clear what the Constraint applies to.

I am not sure I understand. Do you mean which instance or which class?

If the former, I would like to understand what the problem is with what you have there, ie, that an individual of a Constraint class is the object of the odrl:contraint predicate, whose subject is pretty much what you need.

If the latter, odrl:constraint's domain already provides the restrictions you needed, and just extending that domain with the Constraint class means that you can chain constraints, just as you described, but with minimal changes.

I seem to miss something…

Ivan


> 
> Otherwise, we can have four Constraints in a Permission, then we would have to have Michael’s “odrl:constraintSubject” property in each to say what it applies to.
> 
> Renato Iannella, Monegraph
> Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working Group
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704