Re: [poe] ambiguous semantics of duty constraints

> I added this row as, otherwise, and ODRL evaluator would not know when (or if) a consequence is required to be fulfilled. (?)

Sorry, but consequence is a property of a duty Duty and not of a Permission. If a Permission has 3 duty-ies, each with a consequence,  2 of them are fulfilled and 1 of them is infringed, then only the consequence of this infringed duty has to be executed. So the Permission has not an "infringed" state and at the level of a permission no consequence can be executed as there is no such property.

> Since the constraint is "not-satisfied", then it does not matter what the action cell says?

If an ODRL processor should make use of this table each column should be filled in. If a basic rule for processing defines the action must be included in the processing we should explicitly say "in this case the execution of the action is '_not relevant_' " (Personal note: I've been struggling with such undefined states in other technical rules/standard and don't like that.)
And 1: I think we should narrow down the semantics of this column an head it "action exercised". The processor does not have to check if there as an action defined, it has only to check: has the action been exercised and this could be a Yes or No or a "not relevant"

And 2: if a column cannot be filled in for a Rule sub-class for formal reasons we should apply a NA (not applicable): remedy column in Permission and Duty rows, duty and consequence column in Prohibition rows. 

And 3: This table needs a legend for a full understanding: 
* multiple duty instances in a Permission and multiple remedy instances in a Prohibition may occur. In this case they must be ANDed
* consequence is not a property of Permission but of a duty.
* a definition of all terms used in the cells, or at least a reference to a section of the IM where all of them are defined.

> ... what others states are missing

I'll go over that ...



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/211#issuecomment-324550663 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 24 August 2017 06:58:01 UTC