W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-poe-archives@w3.org > October 2017

Re: [poe] Harmonise how a Duty with consequences should be evaluated

From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:26:40 +0000
To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-334084760-1507105586-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Now things get complex as we reuse the same examples and associated assumptions too much:
* That an **"original Duty" can be exercised** after not having been exercised **is not guaranteed**. This is an assumption without any proof as the POE WG does not know what duty-actions will be defined by profiles beyond the Common Vocabulary - and ODRL should not build on assumptions.
(Quick aside: a Policy could reflect a road traffic law, not only GDPR, one Obligation is: "do not crash the car into another one". And the consequence is: "the insurance data of the car causing the crash must be shared with the owner of the other car to get it repaired". In this case the original Duty "not to crash into another car" cannot be fulfilled, the damaged car can only be repaired.)
* Further: **why do we assume that all users of ODRL must have the requirement that the "original Duty"  MUST be fulfilled** in the context of consequences? I know from public transport systems that if you use it without a ticket you have to pay a fine - and this includes getting a valid ticket. Such a solution must be possible for a user of ODRL!
* re @riannella "I understand ..." above: which "IM" is correct: the definition of the Duty Class or the explanation of the consequence property? 
And we have to be very careful: there is a fundamental difference between what must be fulfilled by the definition of the ODRL IM (as this is hardwired, no escape from it) and what must be fulfilled as one of the consequence Duties (as this is flexible, has to be defined by the maker of the Rule.)
I hope it can be understood that **I'm against hardwiring assumptions** - see above.
* re @riannella 's note above: it is another assumption that only constraints are the reason for the problems with fulfilling the "original Duty". It could also be a specific action only.
* Why don't we pick the **simple solution which is also very flexible**: if the "original Duty" should be fulfilled in the context of consequences then it should be explicitly expressed as one of the consequence Duties - maybe with less constraints.


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/267#issuecomment-334084760 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 08:26:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:47:03 UTC