- From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 07:19:05 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
(pre-note: @riannella and I have been creating a comment at almost the same time) This looks like a terminology issue, I pointed at it in #215, there I wrote: * ... by my understanding: "a Duty is in effect" = the action of the Duty has to be taken, "a Duty has been fulfilled" = the action of the Duty has been taken successfully. * Pondering that again raises the issue: "(not) in effect" for Permissions and Prohibitions is used to tell "all constraints of a Permission or Prohibition have been satisfied, therefore the assignee(s) may do what has been permitted or must not do what has been prohibited" - BUT: can a Duty be "in effect" at all as if the constraints of a Duty Rule have been satisfied the action required by the Duty has been taken. The key problem is: in the logical context of a Policy a Duty is more a kind of constraint which has to be satisfied than a Rule. This is expressed by the position of a Duty in a Policy: a Duty MUST be related to a Permission or a Prohibition, it is not a "direct child" of a Policy. In other words: not the used class should define the terminology but the role of the property (using this class) in the information model of a Policy. Therefore I think we have to adjust the terminology: * **only Permissions and Prohibitions are "(not) in effect"** * **all properties of type Duty - obligation, duty and consequence - should use "(not) fulfilled"** (using fulfilled to make a distinction to the explicit Constraints) ** Note on @riannella 's posting above: sorry, I see not semantic difference between obligation and duty. Both have to be fulfilled else something gets stuck with using the Rules of the Policy. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/211#issuecomment-323665639 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 21 August 2017 07:19:04 UTC