Re: of Duties

Hi Joshua,

In my opinion, having obligations without them being triggered by 
permissions makes the language more flexible and suitable for 
non-foreseen scenarios.

Regards,
Víctor

On 19/07/2024 16:27, Joshua Cornejo wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am reading 2.6.4 Obligation property with a Policy 
> <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
>

-- 
Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
✉️ D2110 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
📞 +34 910672914
🌐http://cosasbuenas.es