Re: Clarify the new proposal

Hi!

> 1) Does this mean that constraints at the action level do not have any
> impact on the Active/NotActive state of the rule?

Only constraints of a rule (and not the ones of its 
actions/assets/parties) have an impact on deciding whether a rule is 
considered to be active or not active.

> Simon’s proposal [2] (just before Example 16):
> 
> 2) Does this mean we need to add a “new” property called
> “action” to relate the Action to the action (instance)?
> (we used to call this “name” in ODRL V2.1 [3])

yeah kinda.. but the example I've drafted there is just one way of 
differentiating between the different semantics of constraints.
I've outlined another proposal at 
https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/211#issue-243981567 which I think is 
similar to ->

> 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.)

br simon

---
DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna

www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys

Am 2017-08-25 05:39, schrieb Renato Iannella:
>> 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




---
DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna

www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys

Am 2017-08-25 04:18, schrieb Renato Iannella:
> The ODRL IM/Vocab Editors ( ;-) need some clarification on the new
> proposal [1]:
> 
> "constraints on rule level control whether a rule is ACTIVE or NOT
> ACTIVE (that includes all types of rules), constraints on action level
> can be used to specify any specific conditions on how an action has to
> be performed (similar to constraints on party/asset collections)”
> 
> 1) Does this mean that constraints at the action level do not have any
> impact on the Active/NotActive state of the rule? (ie not used by an
> ODRL Evaluator)
> 
> Simon’s proposal [2] (just before Example 16):
> 
> 2) Does this mean we need to add a “new” property called
> “action” to relate the Action to the action (instance)?
> (we used to call this “name” in ODRL V2.1 [3])
> 
> 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?)
> 
> Renato
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/08/24-poe-minutes.html
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Evaluator
> [3] https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/#section-2
> [4] http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#constraintLeftOperandCommon

Received on Friday, 25 August 2017 05:28:42 UTC