Re: [poe] Model clarifications

> @simonstey what do you think about 5) above?

I definitely agree with @aisaac here. Even more so, since Duties can now have **any** Action as their `odrl:action` and not just ones that can't be used by Permissions/Prohibitions and vice versa.

Btw we state in [2.5.3 Duty](http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#duty):
> It is assumed that **any** assigned Party has the appropriate permissions to perform the Duty Action.

Which is too restrictive, as not **any** assigned Party needs to have permissions to perform the Duty Action but only the ones that actually have to fulfill the obligation.

e.g. `ex:Bob` permits `ex:Alice` to reproduce `<http://example.com/asset:9898>` but only if  `ex:Alice` plays `<http://example.com/asset:1>`:

```turtle
<http://example.com/policy:01>
    a odrl:Policy;
    odrl:permission [
        a odrl:Permission ;
        odrl:target <http://example.com/asset:9898> ;
        odrl:action odrl:reproduce ;
        odrl:assigner ex:Bob ;
        odrl:assignee ex:Alice ;
        odrl:duty [
             a odrl:Duty ;
             odrl:action odrl:play ;
             odrl:target <http://example.com/asset:1> ;
        ]
    ] .
```
to be able to fulfill her duty, **only** `ex:Alice` needs to be allowed to `odrl:play` `<http://example.com/asset:1>`. So even if `ex:Bob` is prohibited to play `<http://example.com/asset:1>`,  there's no conflict as `ex:Alice` is still able to fulfill her duty:

```turtle
#no conflict
<http://example.com/policy:02>
    a odrl:Policy;
    odrl:permission [
        a odrl:Permission ;
        odrl:target <http://example.com/asset:9898> ;
        odrl:action odrl:reproduce ;
        odrl:assigner ex:Bob ;
        odrl:assignee ex:Alice ;
        odrl:duty [
             a odrl:Duty ;
             odrl:action odrl:play ;
             odrl:target <http://example.com/asset:1> ;
        ]
    ] ;
    odrl:prohibition [
        a odrl:Prohibition ;
        odrl:target <http://example.com/asset:1> ;
        odrl:action odrl:play ;
        odrl:assignee ex:Bob ;
    ] .
```
-------------------------
> Maybe a policy that (possibly by inheritance) asks the assignee to attribute the creator and at the same time to anonymize the asset? Or a policy that declares inheritance from CC-BY but requires compensation for commercial use? They will all look a bit absurd of course, but I guess it's the essence of conflict :-)

fwiw, those wouldn't cause conflicts :)




-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by simonstey
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/162#issuecomment-306696227 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2017 06:08:12 UTC