search

w3c / poe

Permissions & Obligations Expression WG
Other
23 stars 18 forks source link

Differences between constraint terms #117

Closed simonstey closed 7 years ago

simonstey commented 7 years ago

Section 3.8.1:

Constraint objects MAY also be used as both of the values for the leftOperand and rightOperand of a Constraint expression. This supports more complex Constraint Relations and allows for two constraints to be compared and processed accordingly. The two constraints MUST be atomic Constraints, that is, not a constraint that includes other Constraint Relations.

What's the difference between:

  1. Constraint object
  2. Constraint expression
  3. Constraint Relations
  4. constraint
  5. atomic Constraint

and how are they defined?

vroddon commented 7 years ago

Glad to clarify the terminology we use.

The definition of Constraint https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-Constraint might be improved: "/The limits and restrictions to Actions in Rules./". I dislike the plural, and perhaps instead of Actions we may want to say "the exercise of Actions", etc. Having said that, to my understanding:

  1. Constraint object. A Constraint, as a concept. But in the sentence below, I would say "Constraint expressions"
  2. Constraint expression. The representation of a Constraint. For example, the RDF representation or an expression in a formal grammar.
  3. Constraint Relations. In the sentence below, constraint expression
  4. constraint. In the sentence below, a Constraint as a concept
  5. atomic Constraint. It is well defined in the sentence below. Constraint Expression where neither leftOperand nor rightOperand is another Constraint Expression

Summing up: I defend:

Regards, Víctor

El 02/03/2017 a las 10:57, simon escribió:

Section 3.8.1:

*Constraint objects* MAY also be used as both of the values for
the leftOperand and rightOperand of a *Constraint expression*.
This supports more complex *Constraint Relations* and allows for
two *constraints* to be compared and processed accordingly. The
two *constraints* MUST be *atomic Constraints*, that is, not a
*constraint* that includes other *Constraint Relations*.

What's the difference between:

  1. Constraint object
  2. Constraint expression
  3. Constraint Relations
  4. constraint
  5. atomic Constraint

and how are they defined?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/117, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFLs5f4U31ARyVl5V7t_Hc01BwMbRRBAks5rhpKbgaJpZM4MQxlc.

-- Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG) Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain Tel. (+34) 91336 3753 Skype: vroddon3

nitmws commented 7 years ago

Hi @vroddon your link points to the Vocabulary & Expression document, @simonstey talks about the ODRL Model Info document - at e.g. https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/ Re Simon's issues:

  1. Right, the Constraint is called "entity" in its specification in 3.8 - should be aligned in 3.8.1
  2. 3.8 says in the first para "Constraints are a logical expression ...". For me the entity is the wider term and expression the more specific, a kind of entity type. Like entity vs person/location/company ...
  3. Right, 3.8.1 doesn't use a language defining the term Constraint Relations.
  4. see my suggested language below
  5. see my suggested language below

My suggestion for the name and first para of 3.8.1: I think Contraints could be a plural while Relations should be a singular --> "Constraints Relation A Constraints Relation defines a relationship between two Constraints and is expressed by a Constraint entity which holds an atomic Constraint in each of the leftOperand and the rightOperand. The operator sets the relationship. An atomic Constraint is an entity not including a Constraints Relation."

vroddon commented 7 years ago

I see. I would make a difference between a concept and its representation (expression).

Víctor

El 06/03/2017 a las 12:05, Michael Steidl escribió:

Hi @vroddon https://github.com/vroddon your link points to the Vocabulary & Expression document, @simonstey https://github.com/simonstey talks about the ODRL Model Info document - at e.g. https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/ Re Simon's issues:

  1. Right, the Constraint is called "entity" in its specification in 3.8 - should be aligned in 3.8.1
  2. 3.8 says in the first para "Constraints are a logical expression ...". For me the entity is the wider term and expression the more specific, a kind of entity type. Like entity vs person/location/company ...
  3. Right, 3.8.1 doesn't use a language defining the term Constraint Relations.
  4. see my suggested language below
  5. see my suggested language below

My suggestion for the name and first para of 3.8.1: I think Contraints could be a plural while Relations should be a singular --> "Constraints Relation A Constraints Relation defines a relationship between two Constraints and is expressed by a Constraint entity which holds an atomic Constraint in each of the leftOperand and the rightOperand. The operator sets the relationship. An atomic Constraint is an entity not including a Constraints Relation."

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/117#issuecomment-284366898, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFLs5eV1-O4FUFSeA7m9o0vqCGu4c4_2ks5ri-h9gaJpZM4MQxlc.

-- Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG) Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain Tel. (+34) 91336 3753 Skype: vroddon3

riannella commented 7 years ago

Note: we should define a Constraint as:

"The Constraint entity can be used to define the context in which to process Actions in Rules, such as limitations, restrictions, or interpretations that must be applied to the Actions."

?

riannella commented 7 years ago

"Constraint entity" refers to the actual IM class, and "constraint" is a general reference to any instance of a Constraint entity.

So we usually start a section with "Thing Entity" then start to talk about just the "Thing".

So Section 3.8.1 could be rewritten as:

Constraint entities MAY also be used as both of the values for the leftOperand and rightOperand of a constraint. These are called "Constraint Relations" as they support more complex relationships between two constraints that needs to be compared and processed accordingly. The two constraints MUST be atomic constraints, that is, not a constraint that includes other Constraint Relations.

We could drop the term "expression" throughout section 3.8 as it s not really needed.

Perhaps we should call then "Complex Constraints" and not "Constraint/s Relation/s" ?

simonstey commented 7 years ago

Constraint entities MAY also be used as both of the values for the leftOperand and rightOperand of a constraint. These are called "Constraint Relations" as they support more complex relationships between two constraints that needs to be compared and processed accordingly.

What is called Constraint Relation?

nitmws commented 7 years ago
riannella commented 7 years ago

I propose we explicitly create two subsections in 3.8 Constraints: 3.8.1 Atomic Constraint 3.8.2 Compound Constraint

The UML model should also be updated with an association from/to Constraint.

riannella commented 7 years ago

@simonstey @nitmws @vroddon Any comments/feedback on the proposed naming of the two types of constraints?

vroddon commented 7 years ago

I am happy with that

riannella commented 7 years ago

WG agreed to change (24/4/2017)

riannella commented 7 years ago

I have updated the Constraint section and split into two (Atomic and Compound)