Re: of Duties

The two examples are primarily used to demonstrate “how” to express an Obligation, not necessarily “why”.

But they should show how to use these in a more complex scenario…such as inheriting the obligation, or as part of a workflow….

Cheers…R


> On 20 Jul 2024, at 00:27, Joshua Cornejo <josh@marketdata.md> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
>  
> I am reading 2.6.4 Obligation property with a Policy <x-msg://169/2.6.4Obligation%20property%20with%20a%20Policy> and trying to understand in which use case a Party will have to fulfil an obligation without it being triggered by odrl:Permission or by a odrl:consequence. 
>  
> Example 20 implies that assignee person:44 has to pay €500 … but it is getting nothing (no Target nor Action) and has done nothing (no Action), so it doesn’t explain “why” it has to be fulfilled.
>  
> Example 21 expands a bit by having an action and a target. It is good to illustrate the structure, it shows how to articulate a Duty, but doesn’t explain what triggered the rule. This on actually looks like a separate dimension for an “audit” type role (obligation says delete – assignee didn’t execute the action “delete”, therefore must compensate) and can’t be evaluated.
>  
> Regards,
> ___________________________________
> Joshua Cornejo
> marketdata <https://www.marketdata.md/>
> embed open standards 
> across your supply chain