Re: A clarification on odrl:duty

Hi Renato,

Thanks for the feedback!

First I picked the sentence about Duty from [1], in case you'd like to fix it there.

Second, my second example indeed disconnected the Duty from the DatasetDistribution. It should have been:

_:ex1 a odrl:Offer [
     odrl:permission [
       odrl:target _:myDatasetDistribution ;
       odrl:action odrl:access;
       odrl:assigner _:serviceProvider;
     ]
     odrl:duty [
       odrl:assignee _:serviceProvider;
       odrl:target _:myDatasetDistribution ;
       odrl:action xxx:serve;
       odrl:constraint [
           # the constraint of serving data with 99% uptime
       ]
     ]
]

But this problem was also in the first example in [2] (with the Duty 'nested' in the Permission). I guess we should have had the target repeated in the Duty, shouldn't we?
I'm not sure reading the sentence about duties, action and target at [3] is very clear about this point.

Last, your answer (rightly) criticized my second example, but it doesn't sound like firmly pushing the first pattern, either.
I am still puzzled thinking that the obligation to serve the data with a 99% uptime MUST be fulfilled in order to give the permission to access the data. As a matter of fact someone may still have the permission, even if the uptime is down to 95%. This is why I thought of attaching the Duty to the Offer directly, rather than to the Permission.

So, do you firmly believe that the first pattern (using odrl:Duty as currently defined, with the nesting) is more appropriate to capture what we need to capture in our example? Even after I fixed the issue with odrl:target in the second pattern?

If you have doubts as well please share them. We don't have a strong commitment to use odrl:Duty, so you think if the current definition not a perfect match with our requirement, this is useful feedback. We would still use ODRL for a part of our example (the permission).

Antoine

[1]https://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ODRL21#term-Duty
[2]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-odrl/2016Feb/0003.html
[3] https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2-1/#section-25

On 2/21/16 12:57 PM, Renato Iannella wrote:
>
>> On 21 Feb 2016, at 03:33, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>> ODRL defines "A Duty indicates requirements which must be fulfilled in order to receive the permission.”
>
> Technically it says "The Duty entity indicates a requirement that MUST be fulfilled in return for being entitled to the referring Permission entity”
>
> The intent is that any party can be the subject of a Duty, but it is always within the context of a Permission (which then implies an target resource)
>
> In the “first-order” example you gave:
>
>> _:ex1 a odrl:Offer
>>    odrl:permission [
>>      odrl:target _:myDatasetDistribution ;
>>      odrl:action odrl:access;
>>      odrl:assigner _:serviceProvider;
>>    ]
>>    odrl:duty [
>>      odrl:assignee _:serviceProvider;
>>      odrl:action xxx:serve;
>>      odrl:constraint [
>>          # the constraint of serving data with 99% uptime
>>      ]
>>    ]
>
> There is no scope for the "99%uptime” - it does not refer to myDatasetDistribution or the action the user wants to perform (access).
>
> I hope that makes sense?
>
> Renato
>

Received on Sunday, 21 February 2016 15:02:53 UTC