RE: "active" Rules - by michaelS' view

Hi Renato,

 

thanks for the update, I suggest a some edits (underlined) to clarify some
details:

*	Re "ODRL processors are required to determine if a Rule has met
their intended action performance."
- sorry, but I can't fully get what "a Rule meets its intended action
performance", primarily what is the "action performance" of a Rule? (For me
"action performance" is a term in the context of cars.)
I suggest ". if a Rule has met its intended goal." (optionally appending ".
of granting permissions, checking prohibitions or checking the fulfilment of
a duties."
- " . if a Rule has met their ." - mix of singular and plural
*	Re 3Rd para " . if the constraint properties of a Rule are satisfied
to determine if the Rule is Active" - too many ifs, I suggest ". if all
constraint properties of a Rule are satisfied to determine the Rule is
Active, if at least one of the constraints is not satisfied to determine the
Rules is Not-Active." . to include also explicitly what sets the Not-Active
state.
*	Re 3rd para ". A Non-Active Rule means that no further processing is
required at this time .": using "no . is required" opens the option to a
further processing by free will and this should not be the case. I suggest
"". A Non-Active Rule means that no further processing should be executed at
this time ."
*	Re "Evaluator must": I suggest to markup the final states of the
three Rule sub-classes by uppercase and in bold - like Non-/Active
*	Re "Evaluator must", 1st bullet: I suggest to swap the sentences:
first evaluation, then allowing to take the action of a Permission.
And: ". and confirming, the fulfilled state of the duty properties ." is
skipping all duties must be fulfilled -> ". and confirming, the fulfilled
state of all the duty properties .
*	NOTE: I understood from the discussions and wrote down in my "view"
that duties have to be fulfilled to make a Permission Active. This update
moves this requirement a step after the evaluation the Active state, to the
evaluation of the final Permission state. Hi all: is that ok? I see Simon
leans towards my view (see the note about Simon's issue below)


*	Re "Evaluator must", 2nd bullet: a Prohibition disallows an action
in any case. The Evaluator must check if the disallowed action has been
exercised or not! I suggest:
Check if exercising the disallowed action of a Prohibition sets it to
Violated, else it is Not-Violated. In the Violated state fulfilling all
remedies of the Prohibition sets the state of the Prohibition back to
Not-Violated. Not fulfilling any remedy keeps the state at Violated.
*	Re "Evaluator must", 3rd bullet: sorry, that's running in circles,
the fulfilment of the Duty-action cannot be confirmed by determining if the
Duty has been fulfilled. I suggest:
Confirm that a Duty is Fulfilled by checking if the action of the Duty has
been exercised. If the action is not been exercised the fulfilment of all
consequences of a Duty sets the Duty to Fulfilled; if one or more
consequences is not fulfilled then the Duty is Not-Fulfilled.



I see that Simon has raised a POE issue on that too:
https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/226

 

Best,

Michael

 

From: Renato Iannella [mailto:renato.iannella@monegraph.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 3:50 AM
To: POE Public <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: "active" Rules - by michaelS' view

 

I have updated the Active Rule section:

 

  https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#rule-active

 

Please review  and send in any suggested changes.

 

Renato Iannella, Monegraph

Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working Group