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

@riannella @simonstey and @sabrina let's have a look back at square 1 of this Issue:

In the **current IM** we have this definition right under the heading 2.6.3 Duty Class - without any word about a requirement to fulfil of the "original Duty" to finally fulfil the Duty with consequences.

> A Duty is the obligation to exercise an action, with all refinements satisfied. A Duty is fulfilled if all constraints are satisfied and if its action, with all refinements satisfied, has been exercised. If its action has not been exercised, then all consequences must be fulfilled to fulfil the Duty. 

And we have in the **current IM**  this language as narrative regarding the `consequence `property (defined some paragraphs above that) -  raising the requirement to fulfil both the "orginal Duty" and the consequences.

> The consequence property (a sub-property of the failure property) is utilised to express the repercussions of not fulfilling an agreed Policy obligation or duty for a Permission. If either of these fails to be fulfilled, then this will result in the consequence Duty also becoming a new requirement, meaning that the original obligation or duty, as well as the consequence Duty must all be fulfilled.

Status of the issue at this point: the **current IM** has contradicting definitions - one of them must be selected for a final ODRL Recommendation. At the formal level of the CR none of these definitions has an explicit precedence.

Next comes Issue #275: @simonstey demonstrates that it is possible to define an "original Duty" which is impossible to be fulfilled when a Duty is evaluated under the requirement to include the consequences.
And the Note suggested by Renato three comments above would explicitly change the IM: constraints have to be ignored!

Status of the issue at this point: if the POE WG would select the `consequence `definition "original Duty and consequences must be fulfilled" the result would open the door for Duties which cannot be processed successfully - and this should be avoided with regards to the quality of ODRL.
And to clarify: for me it is questionable if such a bad state could be considered as satisfying Simon's and Sabrina's requirement.

To get out of this situation I suggest (again):
1. Stick to the definition of the Duty Class, right under the 2.6.3 heading and ...
2. ... adjust the `consequence `definition to it this way: 
The consequence property (a sub-property of the failure property) is utilised to express the repercussions of not fulfilling an agreed Policy obligation or duty for a Permission. If either of these fails to be fulfilled, then this will result in the consequence Duty/ies becoming a new requirement, meaning that all the consequence Duties MUST all be fulfilled. If a business need requires to fulfil also the original obligation or duty then it must be expressed as a consequence.

This solution would satisfy the requirement raised by Simon and Sabrina - it is possible to define "also the original Duty must be fulfilled" -, it avoids running into dead-end streets when processing a Duty, and the IM would not be changed, the definition at the top of 2.6.3 takes some precedence and the features of the `consequence `are reformulated.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/267#issuecomment-334361445 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 5 October 2017 05:14:19 UTC