Action Definitions

A wide review [1] has suggested that our definitions for Actions have “many problems” in that they include both the party roles (assigner/assignee) and the rule (permission or prohibition) and will be in conflict for any Policy other than an Agreement.

So, “print” currently defined as: "The Assigner permits/prohibits the Assignees to print an Asset onto paper or to create a hard copy”
should be more succinctly defined as “Render Asset onto paper to create a hard copy”.

The roles and perms/prohibit are provided by the context of the Rule the action appears in.
(The definitions also don’t work with Duties if we consider that any Action can be used for all 3 Rule subclasses)

I aslo agree with this position and would propose that all definitions for all Actions remove the contextual roles/rules information.

Any objections?


[1] <>

Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2017 03:59:58 UTC