- From: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 07:00:54 +0200
- To: Renato Iannella <renato.iannella@monegraph.com>
- Cc: W3C POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
> 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. +1, also related [1] > (The definitions also don’t work with Duties if we consider that any > Action can be used for all 3 Rule subclasses) that is (was?) not true though, right? IIRC, duties have (and can only use) their own set of actions [2] which is disjoint from the set of actions for perm/proh [3]. > I aslo agree with this position and would propose that all definitions > for all Actions remove the contextual roles/rules information. for [3] -> yes! for [2] -> hmm.. not sure.. I think that needs some more discussion br simon [1] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/74 [2] https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#dutyActionsCommon [3] https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#actionsCommon --- DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys Am 2017-05-30 05:59, schrieb Renato Iannella: > 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? > > Renato > > [1] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/185
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2017 05:01:26 UTC