- From: Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:57:05 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
I agree with the model in https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Duty_Relations First objection. The choice of "`odrl:consequence`" may be confusing for a reader facing these triples: ``` :policy1 odrl:obligation :duty2 . :duty2 odrl:consequence :dc2 . ``` It seems as if doing :duty2 leads to :dc2, whereas the actual meaning is "using :policy1 without having done :duty2 has :dc2 has a consequence". Perhaps a better term is needed. Second objection: the consequence may not be initiated by the breacher. A punishment would not be a duty of the breacher, but some action the punisher may or may not execute. In this sense, it would not be a "duty", but more a "permission" .... -- GitHub Notification of comment by vroddon Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/209#issuecomment-319059252 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 31 July 2017 12:57:06 UTC