Re: [poe] Model clarifications

Re the discussion at the [call on 2017-06-26](https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170626)

First to say: following this issue and also issue #154 it is hard to draw unambiguous conclusions. E.g. is this discussion about having Duty at the policy-level applying only to the subclass Set and not other subclasses? If: Set is defined as "represents any combination of Rules" and it leaves it open for what purpose a Set may be used. May Set be used to check if an assignee is permitted to take an action on an asset, or is a Set too unclear?

The concern I raised was about this case in the context of an Agreement:
A policy expresses: Asset 99 may be presented by (parts of) the Team 4711 but not by (parts of) the team 4712. And a Duty at the policy level requires to pay 5 EUR.

```
<http://example.com/policy:001>
    a odrl:Agreement;
    "duty": [{
            "action": "compensate",
            "constraint": [{
                "leftOperand": "payAmount",
                "operator": "eq",
                "rightOperand": "5.00",
                "unit": "https://www.currency-iso.org/dam/downloads/lists/list_one.xml#EUR"
            }],
    odrl:permission [
        a odrl:Permission ;
        odrl:target ex:asset99 ;
        odrl:action odrl:present ;        
        odrl:assignee ex:team4711
    ] ;
    odrl:prohibition [
        a odrl:Prohibition ;
        odrl:target ex:asset99 ;
        odrl:action odrl:present ;
        odrl:assignee ex:team4712
    ] .
```
The request for evaluation is: Ms Person987 wants to present Asset 99 - and she is partOf Team4712 - and the ODRL Policy http://example.com/policy:001 needs to be evaluated.

What can be concluded from that use case?
* the Prohibition of Policy 001 applies to the request: the asset, the action and the assignee (via partOf) match (= at least one of the permission/prohibition rules of this Policy applies)
* does the policy-level duty apply too?
   * if the IM defines it applies only if one of the permissions is in effect: no
  * if the IM defines it applies to the policy in case of any permission/prohibition is in effect: yes

Footnote:  @simonstey example at the call to use a policy-level duty for requiring to follow a specific legislation fits well as it applies to permissions and prohibitions in the same way. So "passive" duties fit, and "active" duties do not fit at the policy-level?



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/162#issuecomment-311074349 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 14:23:47 UTC