consistency of definitions

[simonstey]

http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#rule

The Rule class has the following properties:

• A Rule MUST have a target Asset. Other relation values for Asset MAY be used.
• A Rule MUST have an Action via the action property.
• A Rule MAY have one or more assigner and/or assignee function roles undertaken by Party entities Other function properties for Party MAY be used.

why are those 3 conditions phrased differently?

• A Rule MUST have an Asset via the target property.
• A Rule MUST have an Action via the action property.
• A Rule MAY have one or more Parties via the assigner/assignee property.

---

• A Rule MUST have a target Asset.
• A Rule MUST have an Action
• A Rule MAY have one or more Assigners and/or Assignees

---

• A Rule MUST have one or more asset relations undertaken by Asset entities. Other relation values for Asset MAY be used.
• A Rule MUST have one or more action properties relating to Action entities via the action property.
• A Rule MAY have one or more assigner and/or assignee function roles undertaken by Party entities. Other function properties for Party MAY be used.

[riannella]

No reason in particular ;-)

Actually, perhaps at the Rule level we should say:

A Rule MUST have an Asset via the relation property.
A Rule MUST have an Action via the action property.
A Rule MAY have one or more Parties via the function property.

Then state:

The abstract relation and function properties MUST be represented as explicit types of these properties in the subclasses of Rule. (better wording here)

Then we can state in the Permission/Prohibition/Duty sections what these explicit types must/my be?

[simonstey]

No reason in particular ;-)

I know :D

A Rule MUST have an Asset via the relation property.

That's not true for Duties:

A Duty MAY have a target Asset on which the agreed Action MUST be performed.

The abstract relation and function properties MUST be represented as explicit types of these properties in the subclasses of Rule. (better wording here)

I really like the "explicit types of these properties" part! other parts of the spec should be adapted accordingly..

e.g. in the Duty section:

If no explicit Party function is specified as assignee or assigner of the Duty, the Parties with the respective functional roles are taken from the referring Permission. Other function roles for Party MAY be used for Duties (for example, Compensated Party or Tracking Party).

<http://example.com/offer:02> 
    a odrl:Policy;
    odrl:permission [
        a odrl:Permission ;
        odrl:target <http://example.com/asset:9898> ;
        odrl:action odrl:reproduce ;
        odrl:duty [
                a odrl:Duty ;
                odrl:action odrl:pay ;
                odrl:assignee ex:Bob ;   
                odrl:constraint ex:c1 
	] 
    ] .

ex:Bob is defined as asignee of the Duty, is ex:Bob a Party function?

[riannella]

Updated the Rule to be less specific and added the specifics to the subclasses.
Also, please check the wording now for Party in Duty

Commit: f217363