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

Re: [poe] Unsatisfiable consequence example

From: simon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 06:10:23 +0000
To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-334368470-1507183809-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> @simonstey Are you saying that an unsatisfied duty (that has triggered a consequence) now MUST not ever be satisfied, only the consequence?

no.. I'm not saying that the concept of _consequence_ is flawed per se, but that there's some additional narrative required to explain how cases in which consequences are explicitly triggered need to be handled.

E.g., Example 23 is perfectly fine as one can still attribute, even if the consequence was triggered.
    "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld",
    "@type": "Agreement",
    "uid": "http://example.com/policy:66",
    "profile": "http://example.com/odrl:profile:09",
    "permission": [{
        "target": "http://example.com/data:77",
        "assigner": "http://example.com/org:99",
        "assignee": "http://example.com/person:88",
        "action": "distribute",
        "duty": [{
            "action": "attribute",
            "attributedParty": "http://australia.gov.au/",
            "consequence": [{
               "action": "acceptTracking",
               "trackingParty": "http://example.com/dept:100"

GitHub Notification of comment by simonstey
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/275#issuecomment-334368470 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2017 06:10:13 UTC

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