Re: A clarification on odrl:duty

> On 22 Feb 2016, at 01:02, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> First I picked the sentence about Duty from [1], in case you'd like to fix it there.

There is a slight mismatch in the words used in the Common Vocab and the Ontology specs (the former being normative, for now)

> Second, my second example indeed disconnected the Duty from the DatasetDistribution.

And this is not consistent with the ODRL Model, which states that a Duty *must* be associated with a least one Permission.

> 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?

The first example is the correct use of Duty and I think it does meet your requirements. 
(repeating the target is much clearer as well for your use case.)

> 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.

That’s why we added (to 2.0):
"A Duty entity does not, by itself, specify any conditions on when the Duty Action MUST or MAY be performed, such as to compensate before viewing the movie. Such conditions MAY be expressed through Constraint entities."

If the uptime is 95% and the Duty said 99% then all it means is the assignee is not meeting their requirement. (Then you could add if this is the case, the assignee will refund you 10% of the fee…etc..etc)

Renato

BTW, there was some early work on a Services Profile for ODRL (1.1):
https://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/Profiles/Services/WD-20080402.html

Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2016 06:00:36 UTC