Re: [poe] Reviews of ODRL IM - Editor's Draft 3 August 2017

**re Obligation and Duty**
* Generic terminology issue: I see there mixes of two different terminologies which should be consistent
  * for Duty classes: they should be "(not) fulfilled" and not "(not) satisfied"
  * for Permission/Prohibition classes: they should be "(not) in effect" and not "(not) valid"
* **2.1 Policy Class**
The second bullet of the list of properties includes the obligation property. The "See ..." below points at Duty - replace that by **pointing at 2.5.4 Obligation property with Policy.**
* **2.5.3 Duty Class**
The current specification of the consequence property ("The consequence property is utilised ...") does not work:
  * Prerequisite, by my understanding: "a Duty is in effect" = the action of the Duty has to be taken, "a Duty has been fulfilled" = the action of the Duty has been taken successfully.
  * therefore "... meaning that both Duties are now effective and MUST be fulfilled." is wrong: that both are in effect is true, but as the consequence Duty only becomes effective if the "parenting" Duty has NOT been fulfilled this requirement "both ... MUST be fulfilled" can't ever be met.
  * Should be: "... meaning that both Duties are now effective **and now the consequence Duty MUST be fulfilled. If the consequence Duty has been fulfilled the whole Duty has been fulfilled.**"
  * I suggest to merge the case "obligation" and "permission": "... the repercussions of not fulfilling **a required obligation Duty of a Policy or duty of a Permission.**" and remove the sentence "Similarly if a Permission ..."
* **2.5.4 Obligation property with a Policy**
Sorry, but I can't get the current definition of an obligation:
  * Fulfilling a duty of a Permission is required to let the Permission be in effect. But a Policy doesn't have a status "in effect" (see also #217). What is the impact of fulfilling or not fulfilling an obligation of a Policy?
  * I recall from the discussions about this feature: such an obligation is a duty with applies to all permissions of a Policy in a shared way = an obligation Duty at the Policy level is the same a using the same Duty as duty of each of the permissions, the only difference is: this duty has to be fulfilled only once for all permissions and not for each permission individually.
  * If I'm right the definition should be: **A Policy may include an obligation Duty. In this case only if this obligation has been fulfilled the Permission(s) of this Policy may be in effect. If multiple obligations are included all of them have to be fulfilled.**
  * re "Note that if there is no consequence property for an obligation Duty, then the obligation MUST be fulfilled." This is unclear and even violating the definitions of obligations in 2.5.3 - **I suggest to remove it**.
  * (above Example 16) " ...  a consequence is that the assigner MUST also compensate the nominated charity ...": what does this "also" mean? The assignee has NOT deleted the asset = the required action has NOT been taken, therefore the compensation action cannot "also" be taken. **Remove this "also".**
* **2.5.5 Duty property with Permission**
  * Now 1: "In this case the Permission is valid ... if and only if the Duty has been fulfilled."
  * By the terminology used elsewhere a permission Rule can only be "in effect" or "not in effect". Therefore "In this case the Permission is **in effect** .... "  
  * Now 2: "If a Permission has several Duties then all of the Duties MUST be agreed to be satisfied for the Permission to be valid. "
  * Should be 2: "If a Permission has several Duties then all of the Duties MUST be **fulfilled** for the Permission to be **in effect**."
  * " If several Permissions refer to a single Duty, then the Duty only has to be satisfied once for all the Permissions to be valid." - how is the syntax for this case? The ODRL IM and even the Compact Policy syntax has no duty property at the Policy-level! Or is this a hidden reference to the obligation? **This needs clarification!**
* **2.5.6 Consequence property with a Permission(delete 's!) Duty**
This section covers things which are already defined by the Duty class:
  * Should be (simply): **A duty of a Permission may include a consequence of not fulfilling that duty. A consequence is also a Duty. See Duty Class for more about the consequence.**
  * re "Note that if there is no consequence property for a Duty, then the Duty MUST be fulfilled before the Permission can be exercised.": this does not fit into this section as it covers the case of not having a consequence property and  "2.5.5 Duty property with Permission" has already a similar statement - therefore: **remove this Note**
* **2.5.7 Remedy property with a Prohibition**
  * re "Note that if there is no remedy property for a Prohibition, then the Prohibition MUST NOT be exercised." This is unclear: "prohibition" means that an action must not/should not be exercised. And a remedy covers the case that this rule is not met - and it does not open the options "I may take the prohibition seriously or not, if not then I have to do the remedy". I suggest **to remove this note.**
  * re "... and such transgressions should not be considered as negative actions by the assignee." What does that tell, what is "a negative action by the assignee"? Is the consequence to apply no "like"s anymore to the facebook entity of the assignee anymore ;-)? I suggest to **remove at least this "and such transgression ..." part**.


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/215#issuecomment-321979661 using your GitHub account

Received on Saturday, 12 August 2017 13:02:19 UTC