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

from @nitmws 
Hi Renato,
I had a look at the updated language of the Duty Class (2.6.3) definition in the IM version of 10 October (today).
The first paragraph says:
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 also be fulfilled to fulfil the Duty. That is, the consequence is an additional Duty that must also be fulfilled. 
Error: the consequence property may refer “one, one or many” Duty instances, therefore the singular in “the consequence is an additional Duty” is wrong.
Editorial: the fulfil in violet above should be in bold to signal the final state of the Duty Rule.
The explanation of the consequence property in this section says:
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.
Error: same as above: the consequence property may refer to more than 1 Duties  but the definition uses singulars only.
Re NOTE: the language of this note builds on the assumption that the cannot-be-fulfilled state comes only from constraints.
That’s wrong as constraints are only a flexible narrowing down of the semantics of an action - if they refer to an action – and a duty action with these narrower semantics can be defined without any constraint.
Example: many video makers contract streaming services to publish their videos – and expect a 24/7 service.
A realistic contract is: the video must be accessible 99% of the time of a calendar day, else the video service will be “fined”.
This could be expressed as obligation:
action: “make video accessible 99% of the time of a calendar day”
constraint: none
consequence - action: pay back 50% of the service fee for 1 day
Use case: the missing 1% is about 15 minutes – but the video has not been accessible for 20 minutes already at 14:00 -> obligation Duty state: not fulfilled.
How can such an obligation Duty ever be fulfilled? For the remaining 10 hours of the day definitely not. And ignoring constraints does not help because there is none.
Second issue with this NOTE re “In such cases, ODRL implementations SHOULD provide mechanisms to allow the original duty to be satisfiable.”
The implementation of what: of the Policy/Rule sent out to customers/clients OR of the customers/clients receiving the Policy/Rule? OR both?
As ODRL is made to exchange a Policy with Rules between its maker and many receivers the big requirement is: how is this mechanism communicated between the maker and the receivers? Outside of ODRL Policies, inside ODRL Policies?

GitHub Notification of comment by riannella
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 12:28:54 UTC