Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Clarify the Party cardinality for Perms/Prohibs #69

Closed
riannella opened this issue Nov 16, 2016 · 1 comment
Closed

Clarify the Party cardinality for Perms/Prohibs #69

riannella opened this issue Nov 16, 2016 · 1 comment
Assignees
@riannella
Labels
Editorial
Milestone
Information Model

Comments

@riannella
Copy link
Contributor

From simon:

The current spec states (comments inline; similar for prohibition):

3.4 Permission

The Permission entity indicates the Actions that the assignee is permitted to perform on the associated Asset.

It is not required for perm/proh to have any party assigned.

In other words, what the assigner (supplier) has granted to the assignee (consumer).

I would argue that not every assigner/assignee has the role of a supplier/consumer.

[...]
Party: the Permission MUST refer to one or more Party entities linked via the Role entity (see Section 2.3.1) (OPTIONAL)

Is it possible to combine MUST and OPTIONAL?
@riannella riannella added this to the Information Model milestone Nov 16, 2016
@riannella riannella self-assigned this Nov 16, 2016
@riannella
Copy link
Contributor Author

Updated, and the same changes in the Prohibition section

riannella added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 1, 2016
@riannella
Updated the wording for Permission and Prohibition (removed the assig…
2e0e156 
…nee). #69
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@riannella riannella

Labels
Editorial
Projects
None yet
Milestone
Information Model
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@riannella