- From: Renato Iannella via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 04:25:35 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
Some thoughts... > => :permission1 is only in effect if :duty1 is considered to be fulfilled. Exercising :permission1, but failing to prove the fulfillment of :duty1 results in :dc1 becoming effective. So what then does it mean for a Permission to be "in effect", if we now allow a Permission to be exercised without the fulfilment of the Duty. Does this mean I can also now exercise a Permission (ignore the duty) even when there is no consequence Duty defined. Perhaps we need to explicitly state that you can only exercise a Permission and not fulfill the Duty if there is a consequence declared as well. Same for Prohibition. @fornaran also indicated in #191 that violating Prohibitions may lead to reputation issues. So we should state that violating a Prohibition is a design mechanism of the odrl policy language and does not mean you are being naughty 😸 -- GitHub Notification of comment by riannella Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/209#issuecomment-316899199 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 21 July 2017 04:25:38 UTC