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

Coming back to the **definition of an obligation in IM** version 17 August.

The wording now in 2.5.4 Obligation property with a Policy: 
A Policy may include an obligation to fulfill a Duty. If the Duty rule has been fulfilled (that is, all its Constraints are satisfied), then the Duty rule is in effect. That is, the obligation has been meet.

re @riannella above:

> No. The obligation is a completely independent Rule from the permission Rule.
> The obligation Rule is simply - you must do this.
These statements make the use of an obligation at the policy level unclear:
* ODRL has no requirement that all Rules of a Policy must be in effect, else the Policy must not be used (= is not in effect).
* If a Policy has three Permissions the evaluation at a point in time may result in: 2 Permissions are in effect, 1 Permission is not in effect - and this is ok!
* The same may apply for a Policy with these three Permissions plus an obligation Duty. The evaluation results could be: 2 Permissions are in effect, 1 Permission and the obligation Duty are not in effect - and this is ok by the current IM definitions!
* The open issue is: what is the impact on the Policy as a whole, including all Permissions and Prohibitions, if a obligation Duty is not in effect?
* Could the definition be (added to 2.5.4): **If any obligation Duty of a Policy is not in effect then all Permissions and Prohibitions of the Policy are not in effect.**

This must be defined else the obligation Duty is useless.

GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Friday, 18 August 2017 07:48:19 UTC