Re: [poe] The foggy effective/in-effect terminology

I've searched the IM of 25 August for the term "effect" and found 20 occurrences of "effective" and "in effect" in all chapters but chapter 3.
But the story told by these occurrences is not consistent:
* "effective" and "in effect" are randomly used. It would be great to use the same term (maybe in future active) for all occurrences. 
In my free-text I use only the term "in effect" and mean both.
* There is no definition of what "in effect" exactly states: one of the meanings of the English term is that something is "in force" -
* ... but IM does not define what impact "in effect" has on ODRL Things, and it is quite different for the main Rules: the meaning of "a Permission is in effect" = it may be executed, of "a Prohibition is in effect" = it has been accepted properly, of "a Duty is in effect" = the Duty has been fulfilled. 
(_Personal aside: this unclear impact was the reason for my understanding of the "active" state discussed on 24 August which does not comply with what "in effect" defines, sorry I didn't infer it from the 20 occurrences before._)
* ... further the IM has no list of Things of the model which may be "in effect"/"not in effect". That's highly relevant as these are the only Things for which the "in effect"-state must be checked by an ODRL Evaluator. (Having to browse a 40 page document for the term "effect" (or "active")  to find what an Evaluator has to evaluate will not foster the use of ODRL.)
* 1.3 Terminology/Rules and 2.5 Rules class define "For a Rule to become effective, all of it's Constraints MUST be satisfied and all relationships to a Duty MUST be fulfilled." - that sounds ok.
The inconsistency here is that a Duty is also a Rule (as a sub-class) - so what is "fulfilled"? The same as "the Duty is in-effect" - I guess so. De facto the IM uses different terms for stating the same: the (sub-class of) Rule is "in effect".
* 2.5.1 Permission Class makes the same statement as the Rule Class, only replacing "relationships to a Duty" with "the Permission's duty" - that's ok.
* 2.5.2 Prohibition Class makes the same statement as the Rule Class, only replacing "relationships to a Duty" with "the Prohibition's remedies" - that's ok.
* 2.5.3 Duty Class states "The Duty specifies agreed Actions that MUST be fulfilled". Hm, all other parts of the IM state that a Duty must be fulfilled and does not not mention its action.  The key message of this statement tells "executing the action has a role in setting the (not-)fulfilled status of a Duty", but this message must be harmonised with the statement about becoming "in effect" of the Rule Class.
Aside: as the Duty is a sub-class of Rule it "MUST have one action property" and not more, therefore "agreed Actions" uses a wrong plural.
* Further 2.5.3 states regarding the consequence Duty:
A consequence becomes active if "not fulfilling an agreed Policy obligation or duty for a Permission".
Further: "... meaning that the original obligation or duty, as well as the consequence Duty MUST all be fulfilled. " Sorry, that's impossible: a consequence has to be exercised only if the "basic" obligation or duty has NOT been fulfilled, even if the consequence has  been fulfilled the state that both have been fulfilled will never happen.
What is missing in this section is what impact fulfilling a consequence has on the final "fulfilled"-state of the duty or obligation.
* 2.5.4 Obligation property ... (of type Duty) states: "If the Duty rule has been fulfilled (that is, all its Constraints are satisfied), then the Duty rule is in effect. " This statement does not comply with 2.5.3 telling that the action of the Duty must have been taken int account (in some way) and the Constraints must be Satisfied. And suddenly a Duty may be "in effect" - inconsistent use of "fulfilled" and "in effect"
* 2.5.5 Duty property (or better "**d**uty property"?): 
  * the first paragraph talks about the use and role of the duty property in a Permission. Unclear wording is a duty is "a pre-condition that requires fulfillment in order to make a Permission effective using the duty property from the Permission to the Duty." The double use of "duty" sounds like running in circles. 
I suggest for the paragraph to focus on the second sentence and use only: "One or more Duties may be related to a Permission by the duty property; in this case the Permission is in effect if all the Duty instances have been fulfilled and the Permission's constraints all being satisfied."
  * The next paragraph "Since the Duty Rule is subordinate ..." is running another circle (and includes an error by neglecting the constraints of the Permission) and can be deleted.
  * Also the sentence "If a Permission has several duty Duties ..." can be deleted as the case of multiple Duty instances is already covered.
* 2.5.7 Remedy property ...: 
  * the first para includes this sentence "If the Prohibition is exercised, then the remedy Duty MUST be fulfilled. " - why MUST it be fulfilled, the reason is missing, it should be added by appending "... fulfilled to let the Prohibition be in effect, else it will not be in effect." - this is based on the 2.5.2 statement.
  * The 3rd paragraph "Since the Duty Rule is subordinate ..." is running another circle (and includes an error by neglecting the constraints of the Permission) and can be deleted.
* 2.6 Constraint 
  * tells in the 2nd para "For a Rule, if the Constraint is satisfied then the action becomes effective for the enclosing Rule." That's something new: an action becomes effective and not the (enclosing) Rule.
  * Next comes "For a Party/Asset Collection, if the Constraint is satisfied, then the individual Asset or Party member or multiple members - a subset of the Collection - becomes effective for the enclosing Rule." That's also something new, Party instances and Asset instances may become effective. This was not mentioned anywhere and makes sense but is currently not included in the Evaluator considerations. And this raised the need for explicitly defining for the Rule sub-classes what impact a target, assignee or assigner not in effect has. See below re 2.6.3, 2.6.4.
Btw. I've raised the question if target, assigner and assignee should be included in these consideration in #221 
  * The 3rd para tells "A Rule becomes effective if all of its Constraints are satisfied. " - this does not comply with 2.5 Rule Class, also the related Duties have to be fulfilled.
* 2.6.3 Asset Constraint and 2.6.4 Party constraint claim that a constraint applied to a collection of Assets or Parties may let a member Asset/Party be in effect or not. Makes sense to me, see above, needs to be included into the ODRL Evaluator.

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

Received on Saturday, 26 August 2017 13:50:21 UTC