Re: TPAC 2017

if you are both obliged and prohibited to perform an action on the same asset, you also have a conflict though..
-------- Original message --------From: Renato Iannella <renato.iannella@monegraph.com> Date: 11/10/17  01:25  (GMT+01:00) To: POE Public <public-poe-wg@w3.org> Subject: Re: TPAC 2017 

On 9 Nov 2017, at 19:56, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> wrote:
Hi!

fwiw ->

Here are some slides:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1HSG29EpnRAye9_Q_dNCc9tvOkIM8RAFObONCEySx36M/edit?ts=5a037cb1#slide=id.p

Slide 4:
 1) what's the "conflict" property connecting Permission and Prohibition about?

Note that this is a “conceptual” model (not the logical model in the IM) - I find it easier to use in presentations.
The conceptual relationship between Permission and Prohibition is there to indicate that you can make assertions related to how these interact under certain conditions.
The conceptual model tires to capture all the “features” of ODRL.
 2) any particular reason for using "parts" instead of “partOf””
My bad ;-)


Renato Iannella, MonegraphCo-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working Group