Re: Clarify the new proposal

> On 25 Aug 2017, at 15:28, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> wrote:
> 
> yeah kinda.. but the example I've drafted there is just one way of differentiating between the different semantics of constraints.


For consistency, if we have constraints property for Rules, then we should have direct constraint properties for Actions.  (just makes it clear that the constraint applies to the Action, like your example in [1].

So the issue then is (for the IM update), do we
 - introduce the new “action” property as a property of Action (which is not really true in that the Action does not itself have an action)
 - use some other term?
 - or use @value ?

It would be good to still support:
 
 "permission": [{
        "target": "http://example.com/asset:9898.movie",
        "assigner": "http://example.com/party:org:abc",
        "assignee": "http://example.com/party:person:billie",
        "action": "play"

When there is no constraint on the Action.


Renato 

[1] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Evaluator <https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Evaluator>