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 https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/215#issuecomment-323284915 using your GitHub account

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