- From: Renato Iannella via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 03:09:48 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
I think the core issue is that we are trying to force all Rules to "conform" to a specific concept which we call "effective" (or "in effect"). This, I believe, leads to mis-interpretations, such as that outlined in @simonstey's first comment (above). Because "effective" is interpreted as "in force", then if you don't pay the EU500, then the Duty is not "in effect", hence, it is not "in force", which has been interpreted as "i don't have to do the Duty now". Since each Rule has subtle, but significant, differences, we should treat each independently when we are trying to evaluate the rule (so we no longer say "rules are effective..." but have specific terms for each rule type, as well as different outcomes/states for different use cases, which will also aid in the evaluator processing). PROPOSAL: 1) Permission - The ability to perform an Action over an Asset Starting state: not-allowed If the constraints are satisfied, and duties fulfilled, then the permission action is "allowed" (for the assigned parties) over the Asset. If the constraints are not satisfied, and/or duties not fulfilled, and the action has been exercised, then the permission action is "infringed" (for the assigned parties) over the Asset. If the Permission is "infringed", and the constraints are satisfied, and duties fulfilled, and consequence fulfilled, then the permission action is "allowed" (for the assigned parties) over the Asset. 2) Prohibition - The inability to perform an Action over an Asset Starting state: not-confirmed If the constraints are satisfied, and the action has not been performed, then the prohibition action is "confirmed" (for the assigned parties) over the Asset. If the action has been exercised, then the prohibition action is "violated" (for the assigned parties) over the Asset. If the Prohibition is "violated", and the constraints are satisfied, and the remedy has been fulfilled, then the prohibition action is "confirmed" (for the assigned parties) over the Asset. 3) Duty - The obligation to perform an Action Starting state: not-fulfilled If the constraints are satisfied, and the action has been performed, then the duty action has been "fulfilled" (for the assigned parties). If the constraints are not satisfied, and the action has not been exercised, then the duty action is "infringed" (for the assigned parties) over the Asset. If the Duty is "infringed", and the constraints are satisfied, and the action has been exercised, and the consequence fulfilled, then the duty action has been "fulfilled" (for the assigned parties). ---- Note: other, more appropriate, terms for "allowed", "infringed", "confirmed", "violated", "fulfilled" may be preferred. Note: I hope I have captured all main cases, but may not have! ---- SUMMARY: - remove "effective" as it is misleading to use in all cases - include the above proposal in the Rule class section (as a summary) - update each subsection with the new narrative. -- GitHub Notification of comment by riannella Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/211#issuecomment-323907004 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2017 03:09:46 UTC