|
| 1 | +# TODO list |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +## Creating new test cases |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +- [x] checking whether evaluation also work when having xsd:date instead of xsd:dateTime |
| 6 | + - [x] remove comments in `constraint.n3` |
| 7 | + - [ ] Make actual test case for (ODRL-test-suite) |
| 8 | +- [ ] Test cases for zero or one purpose |
| 9 | + - Ensure no DANGLING context is possible -> see rules related to purpose in `constraint.n3` |
| 10 | + - make a test case for that? |
| 11 | +```n3 |
| 12 | +?requestPermission sotw:context ?requestContextConstraint . |
| 13 | +?requestContextConstraint odrl:leftOperand odrl:purpose . |
| 14 | +``` |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | +MUST become |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +```n3 |
| 19 | +?requestPermission a sotw:EvaluationRequest. |
| 20 | +?requestPermission sotw:context ?requestContextConstraint . |
| 21 | +?requestContextConstraint odrl:leftOperand odrl:purpose . |
| 22 | +``` |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +Both created at: `test/ODRL-newTestCases.test.ts` |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +## Other |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +- [x] Do a github release for version 0.4 |
| 29 | +- [ ] fix [issue 3](https://github.com/SolidLabResearch/ODRL-Evaluator/issues/3) -> strange behaviour in action reports for compact rules |
| 30 | + - [ ] perhaps also test whether I can solve compact policies as well as that is just derivation |
| 31 | +- [x] fix [issue 8](https://github.com/SolidLabResearch/ODRL-Evaluator/issues/8) -> collection |
| 32 | +- [x] implement `odrl:anyOf` |
| 33 | +- [x] implement `odrl:isNoneOf` |
| 34 | +- [x] implement `odrl:anyOf` |
| 35 | +- [x] checkout other operators |
| 36 | + - Needs discussion |
| 37 | + - `odrl:isAllOf`: With how we evaluate right now, `odrlisAllOf` does not make a lot of sense |
| 38 | + - `odrl:isPartOf`: what does containment mean? for Target and Party collections, that is clear (`odrl:partOf`) |
| 39 | + - `odrl:hasPart`: what does containment mean? for Target and Party collections, that is clear (`odrl:partOf`) |
| 40 | + - [x] `odrl:isA`: What does *is an instance* mean for right operands? |
| 41 | + - https://besteves4.github.io/odrl-access-control-profile/oac.html#x5-1-preference-policy |
| 42 | + - Needs implementation and test cases |
| 43 | +- [x] Make a release checklist template |
| 44 | +- [x] start drafting roadmap for proper upgrade to new sotw and evaluation request |
| 45 | + - preferably this release? |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +### To be discussed with Beatriz |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +- [ ] update policies in https://github.com/besteves4/pacsoi-policies |
| 50 | + - had to explicitly add `odrl:Permission` to the permission of the policies -> perhaps add code to infer this (making it future proof) |
| 51 | + - Recommend using proper identifiers everywhere due the the policy reports |
| 52 | + - Atomizer of Ruben D fails when blank nodes are used for odrl Rules. As a result, so does my `Atomizer` class. |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | +### Addressed |
| 55 | +- Does it make sense to request access for multiple purposes? |
| 56 | + - A: Right now, it does not. You want to be very specific when you ask for data. You don't want the ambiguity |
| 57 | +- For now, `odrl:hasPart` does not make sense: |
| 58 | + - The current sotw and evaluation request assumes a cardinality of one value to materialize for a left operand. Thus far, no examples have been found where a left operand contains multiple properties. |
| 59 | + - this was the assumption for the state of the world anyway, because we want a deterministic way to get **one** value (though programmable) for the Left Operand |
| 60 | +- `odrl:isAllOf`: A set-based operator indicating that a given value is all of the right operand of the Constraint. |
| 61 | + - It does not make sense: we have not found a value that could do that |
| 62 | + - NOTE: perhaps it would be possible if the meaning of the constraint is |
| 63 | + - A set-based operator indicating that a given value is **AN INSTANCE OF** all of the right operand of the Constraint. |
| 64 | +- `odrl:isPartOf`: There is no generic way to have Collections. Perhaps this operator could be useful in profiles. |
| 65 | + - There is notion of collections with parties and assets, though this is handled already through the party and asset properties of a rule. |
0 commit comments