- From: Sridhar Krishnamurthy <ksridhar@amagi.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 18:26:15 +0530
- To: Joshua Cornejo <josh@marketdata.md>
- Cc: public-odrl@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAML7Ke9G75nFBQgipJRkmaKn_HaSKFYDj2THudp=x-6sF_Rjfw@mail.gmail.com>
Respected Sir, Added the issue https://github.com/w3c/odrl/issues/50 regards On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 6:12 PM Sridhar Krishnamurthy <ksridhar@amagi.com> wrote: > Sir, please see responses below. > > On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 5:45 PM Joshua Cornejo <josh@marketdata.md> wrote: > >> Comments inline: >> >> >> >> Yes sir. I read it too. By looking at the code and documentation i found >> out there are presets that are used to give out result of an evaluation and >> they are 'pre-configured' in >> https://github.com/nitmws/odrl-wprofile-evaltest1/blob/master/testdata/testconfig.yml >> . >> >> >> >> >> I didn’t have the time to check the whole setup >> >> >> >> I also had a look at https://github.com/mosaicrown/policy-engine. >> >> >> >> >> interesting, but >> >> >> >> I am looking/thinking to see if an odrl parser/evaluator can be written >> in a recursive descent manner. >> >> >> >> >> I am not sure that is necessary, in practice you have a graph, and >> some elements can be linearly pre-checked (e.g. dates?). IMHO the optimal >> approach for the semantics is (somehow, don’t have that solution yet) the >> merge of the graphs into RDF and to evaluate/validate in SHACL & SPARQL. >> (In principle what the guys from mosaicrown did – “The policy engine core >> reads all the available policies (either from a repository or from sticky >> metadata), and creates an in-memory policy graph (using RDFLib [3]). A >> SPARQL query is then used to traverse the graph during evaluation). >> > Yes, I will try this approach. thanks > > > >> >> >> Sir, I have a request. The state diagram that you shared earlier nicely >> explained the concept. Can this be added in at least the non-normative >> portions of the https://w3c.github.io/odrl/formal-semantics/ >> specification ? The state diagram reminds me of >> https://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/seoc/2005_2006/resources/statecharts.pdf >> >> >> >> >> You can raise this request in - https://github.com/w3c/odrl/issues >> > > ok. > > regards > > > >> >> >> Regards, >> >> ___________________________________ >> >> *Joshua Cornejo* >> >> *marketdata <https://www.marketdata.md/>* >> >> embed open standards >> >> across your supply chain >> >> >> >> *From: *Sridhar Krishnamurthy <ksridhar@amagi.com> >> *Date: *Thursday 2 May 2024 at 12:21 >> *To: *Joshua Cornejo <josh@marketdata.md> >> *Cc: *<public-odrl@w3.org> >> *Subject: *Re: 'not-set' and 'not violated' in the context of >> prohibition [formal-semantics] >> *Resent-From: *<public-odrl@w3.org> >> *Resent-Date: *Thu, 02 May 2024 11:20:51 +0000 >> >> >> >> Yes sir. I read it too. By looking at the code and documentation i found >> out there are presets that are used to give out result of an evaluation and >> they are 'pre-configured' in >> https://github.com/nitmws/odrl-wprofile-evaltest1/blob/master/testdata/testconfig.yml >> . >> >> I also had a look at https://github.com/mosaicrown/policy-engine. >> >> I am looking/thinking to see if a odrl parser/evaluator can be written in >> a recursive descent manner. >> >> >> >> Sir, I have a request. The state diagram that you shared earlier nicely >> explained the concept. Can this be added in at least the non-normative >> portions of the https://w3c.github.io/odrl/formal-semantics/ >> specification ? The state diagram reminds me of >> https://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/seoc/2005_2006/resources/statecharts.pdf >> >> >> >> regards >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 12:22 AM Joshua Cornejo <josh@marketdata.md> >> wrote: >> >> Sridhar: >> >> >> >> I’ve had a chance to read the GitHub documentation and want to highlight: >> >> >> >> Is a function for evaluation available? (Note: this *project does not >> provide constraint evaluation functions*! - but it outlines where to add >> code for this purpose.) >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> ___________________________________ >> >> *Joshua Cornejo* >> >> *marketdata <https://www.marketdata.md/>* >> >> embed open standards >> >> across your supply chain >> >> >> >> *From: *Sridhar Krishnamurthy <ksridhar@amagi.com> >> *Date: *Wednesday 1 May 2024 at 15:56 >> *To: *Joshua Cornejo <josh@marketdata.md> >> *Cc: *<public-odrl@w3.org> >> *Subject: *Re: 'not-set' and 'not violated' in the context of >> prohibition [formal-semantics] >> *Resent-From: *<public-odrl@w3.org> >> *Resent-Date: *Wed, 01 May 2024 14:56:48 +0000 >> >> >> >> thank you >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 8:24 PM Joshua Cornejo <josh@marketdata.md> wrote: >> >> No idea if there are other evaluators. I think that github has an ‘app’ >> for quick testing - https://odrlapi.appspot.com >> >> >> >> I also think these evaluations are partial (for example the :target or >> :assignee are just an example.com URI). >> >> >> >> If you are testing just a single policy document, those partial >> evaluators should be easy to implement. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> ___________________________________ >> >> *Joshua Cornejo* >> >> *marketdata <https://www.marketdata.md/>* >> >> embed open standards >> >> across your supply chain >> >> >> >> *From: *Sridhar Krishnamurthy <ksridhar@amagi.com> >> *Date: *Wednesday 1 May 2024 at 15:28 >> *To: *Joshua Cornejo <josh@marketdata.md> >> *Cc: *<public-odrl@w3.org> >> *Subject: *Re: 'not-set' and 'not violated' in the context of >> prohibition [formal-semantics] >> *Resent-From: *<public-odrl@w3.org> >> *Resent-Date: *Wed, 01 May 2024 14:28:06 +0000 >> >> >> >> Respected Sir, >> >> >> >> I was only taking a point of view from the state machine perspective and >> not from a programming perspective >> >> as to what is the deontic state when the activation state is inactive. >> >> >> >> What you say makes sense. Will ponder on this further. >> >> >> >> I am also reading the specification >> https://w3c.github.io/odrl/formal-semantics/ as a precursor to >> >> understanding the evaluator developed at >> https://github.com/nitmws/odrl-wprofile-evaltest1 although >> >> this evaluator predates the specification. >> >> >> >> Sir would you happen to know if there is an 'current/ongoing' evaluator >> more in tune with >> >> the terms used in https://w3c.github.io/odrl/formal-semantics/ as >> compared to those mentioned >> >> at >> https://github.com/nitmws/odrl-wprofile-evaltest1/tree/master/evaluator >> >> >> >> regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 6:58 PM Joshua Cornejo <josh@marketdata.md> wrote: >> >> If you are thinking about variables in a programming language – you >> probably have to decide what is the initial state, but I would think the >> aState = inactive / dState = notSet is that starting point. Once you move >> to an active state the deontic state, you need to calculate the state of >> the rule (and trigger a change of state from “not set” to either of the >> other 2). And you don’t ‘care’ about the dState if aState = inactive (value >> is semantically irrelevant). >> >> >> >> But as a state machine, you only exist if your state is ‘the current >> state’. You can’t check for the deontic state if the activation state = >> inactive, similar if you are in any deontic state (because that state >> machine is ‘local’), that means that your activation state = active. >> >> >> >> (any deeper and we’re going into philosophy). >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> ___________________________________ >> >> *Joshua Cornejo* >> >> *marketdata <https://www.marketdata.md/>* >> >> embed open standards >> >> across your supply chain >> >> >> >> *From: *Sridhar Krishnamurthy <ksridhar@amagi.com> >> *Date: *Wednesday 1 May 2024 at 14:14 >> *To: *Joshua Cornejo <josh@marketdata.md>, <public-odrl@w3.org> >> *Subject: *Re: 'not-set' and 'not violated' in the context of >> prohibition [formal-semantics] >> >> >> >> Respected Sir, >> >> >> >> Does this mean that >> >> >> >> (a) the 'Deontic State' (green) of 'not-set' is the same as 'not >> violated' ? >> >> (b) the 'Deontic State' (green) is 'undefined' when the 'Activation >> State' is 'inactive' ? >> >> >> >> regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 6:28 PM Joshua Cornejo <josh@marketdata.md> wrote: >> >> · From that section 2: >> >> - Permission, Prohibition, Obligation (duty at the root level), >> Condition (duty not at the root level) have a property called *activation >> state*, which can take the values of *active* or *inactive*. >> - Prohibition, Obligation, and Condition have a property called *deontic >> state*, which can take the values of *not-set*, or *violated*, or >> *fulfilled*. They can become violated or fulfilled only when they are >> active. >> >> >> >> I have interpreted as 2 state machines that would look as follows >> (matching grey and green as above): >> >> [image: cid:ii_18f3445606d4cff311] >> >> >> >> >> >> ___________________________________ >> >> *Joshua Cornejo* >> >> *marketdata <https://www.marketdata.md/>* >> >> embed open standards >> >> across your supply chain >> >> >> >> *From: *Sridhar Krishnamurthy <ksridhar@amagi.com> >> *Date: *Wednesday 1 May 2024 at 13:46 >> *To: *<public-odrl@w3.org> >> *Subject: *'not-set' and 'not violated' in the context of prohibition >> [formal-semantics] >> *Resent-From: *<public-odrl@w3.org> >> *Resent-Date: *Wed, 01 May 2024 12:46:05 +0000 >> >> >> >> With respect to the deontic state of a Prohibition we see the following: >> >> >> >> [Ref-A] Section https://w3c.github.io/odrl/formal-semantics/#section2 >> mentions 'not-set'. >> >> >> >> [Ref-B] Section >> https://w3c.github.io/odrl/formal-semantics/#sematics-of-prohibition >> mentions 'not violated'. >> >> >> >> Given this background the following questions arise: >> >> >> >> (a) In general (for a Obligation and a Prohibition) >> >> >> >> If the 'Activation State' --> 'inactive' is the >> >> 'Deontic State' --> 'not-set' ? >> >> Because as per [Ref-A] we see the statement >> >> "...They can become violated or fulfilled only when they are >> active...." >> >> >> >> (b) In the context of a Prohibition >> >> >> >> If the 'Activation State' --> 'active' then there are >> >> just two possibilities for the 'Deontic State'. These are >> >> 'not violated' and 'violated' as per [Ref-B]. >> >> Is 'not violated' the default value of the 'Deontic State' >> >> because 'violated' is set only if an action is performed >> >> (which is Prohibited). >> >> >> >> (c) With respect to (a) and (b) can we conclude that in the context of >> >> Prohibition 'not-set' is not the same as 'not violated' as there are >> >> three distinct values of the 'Deontic State' namely 'not-set', >> >> 'not violated' and 'violated'. The former when the 'Activation State' >> >> is 'inactive' and the latter two when the 'Activation State' is >> >> 'active'. >> >> >> >> Forgive me if these are naive questions. >> >> regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *DISCLAIMER: *The contents of this email, including any attachments that >> it may contain, are privileged and confidential information, and may also >> constitute as proprietary, and are intended solely for the use of the >> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the >> sender by email and delete the original message. Unintended recipients are >> strictly prohibited from copying, disclosing, and/or distributing such >> contents in any manner or form. Opinions, conclusions, and other >> information in this transmission that do not relate to the official >> business of Amagi, including all its affiliates, shall be understood as >> neither given nor endorsed by it. Any statements made herein that are >> tantamount to contractual obligations, promises, claims or commitments >> shall not be binding on the Company unless expressly and specifically >> stated as otherwise, or followed by written confirmation, by an authorized >> signatory of the Company. >> >> >> *DISCLAIMER: *The contents of this email, including any attachments that >> it may contain, are privileged and confidential information, and may also >> constitute as proprietary, and are intended solely for the use of the >> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the >> sender by email and delete the original message. Unintended recipients are >> strictly prohibited from copying, disclosing, and/or distributing such >> contents in any manner or form. Opinions, conclusions, and other >> information in this transmission that do not relate to the official >> business of Amagi, including all its affiliates, shall be understood as >> neither given nor endorsed by it. Any statements made herein that are >> tantamount to contractual obligations, promises, claims or commitments >> shall not be binding on the Company unless expressly and specifically >> stated as otherwise, or followed by written confirmation, by an authorized >> signatory of the Company. >> >> >> *DISCLAIMER: *The contents of this email, including any attachments that >> it may contain, are privileged and confidential information, and may also >> constitute as proprietary, and are intended solely for the use of the >> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the >> sender by email and delete the original message. Unintended recipients are >> strictly prohibited from copying, disclosing, and/or distributing such >> contents in any manner or form. Opinions, conclusions, and other >> information in this transmission that do not relate to the official >> business of Amagi, including all its affiliates, shall be understood as >> neither given nor endorsed by it. Any statements made herein that are >> tantamount to contractual obligations, promises, claims or commitments >> shall not be binding on the Company unless expressly and specifically >> stated as otherwise, or followed by written confirmation, by an authorized >> signatory of the Company. >> >> >> *DISCLAIMER: *The contents of this email, including any attachments that >> it may contain, are privileged and confidential information, and may also >> constitute as proprietary, and are intended solely for the use of the >> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the >> sender by email and delete the original message. Unintended recipients are >> strictly prohibited from copying, disclosing, and/or distributing such >> contents in any manner or form. Opinions, conclusions, and other >> information in this transmission that do not relate to the official >> business of Amagi, including all its affiliates, shall be understood as >> neither given nor endorsed by it. Any statements made herein that are >> tantamount to contractual obligations, promises, claims or commitments >> shall not be binding on the Company unless expressly and specifically >> stated as otherwise, or followed by written confirmation, by an authorized >> signatory of the Company. >> >> >> *DISCLAIMER: *The contents of this email, including any attachments that >> it may contain, are privileged and confidential information, and may also >> constitute as proprietary, and are intended solely for the use of the >> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the >> sender by email and delete the original message. Unintended recipients are >> strictly prohibited from copying, disclosing, and/or distributing such >> contents in any manner or form. Opinions, conclusions, and other >> information in this transmission that do not relate to the official >> business of Amagi, including all its affiliates, shall be understood as >> neither given nor endorsed by it. Any statements made herein that are >> tantamount to contractual obligations, promises, claims or commitments >> shall not be binding on the Company unless expressly and specifically >> stated as otherwise, or followed by written confirmation, by an authorized >> signatory of the Company. >> > -- **DISCLAIMER: **The contents of this email, including any attachments that it may contain, are privileged and confidential information, and may also constitute as proprietary, and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by email and delete the original message. Unintended recipients are strictly prohibited from copying, disclosing, and/or distributing such contents in any manner or form. Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this transmission that do not relate to the official business of Amagi, including all its affiliates, shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. Any statements made herein that are tantamount to contractual obligations, promises, claims or commitments shall not be binding on the Company unless expressly and specifically stated as otherwise, or followed by written confirmation, by an authorized signatory of the Company.
Attachments
- image/png attachment: image001.png
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2024 12:56:34 UTC