Re: Clarify the new proposal

> On 25 Aug 2017, at 12:18, Renato Iannella <renato.iannella@monegraph.com> wrote:
> 
> Constraints at the “rule level”: All of the current definitions for constraint terms [4] explicitly include “... for exercising the Action”.
> 
> 3) Does this mean all definitions should be updated to “... for narrowing the Action semantics, or conditions on the Rule”?
> (or have we now created two classes of constraints?)

An option here is to remove all the “... for exercising the Action”  phrases, to make the constraints more generic (and less dependent, like we did with action definitions a while ago).

And (possibly) add a new (more specific) property called “refined” for relationships between Actions and Constraints.
(And continue to use the constraint property for Constraint relationships with Rules, and Asset/Party Collections.)


Renato