RE: About a more strict definition of Constraint

Hi Renato,

as you may recall from the review of the Action terms/concepts for ODRL 2.1 I could help to review.

 

And if both what is constrained and how it is constrained is crystal clear the maker of an ODRL Constraint Processor should know what to check or evaluate.

A basic decision would be: can only the pure Action of a Permission/Duty be constrained or also other entities linked to that action. I feel the latter is already included in the current Names, we can’t avoid it.

In this case there is an open issue: how to to reference a specific policy-external entity. Coming back to the now well known use case: an asset may only be used 30 minutes after event XYZ1 has closed. Which property of Constraint takes this identifier XYZ1?

 

Best,

Michael

 

From: Renato Iannella [mailto:renato.iannella@monegraph.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 5:44 AM
To: W3C POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: About a more strict definition of Constraint

 

 

On 9 Nov. 2016, at 20:48, Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org <mailto: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