RE: [w3c/poe] Unsatisfiable consequence example (#275)

Hi Ben,

please have a look at this #275 issue raised by Simon:
https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/275

He shows that the rule “both the original Duty AND the consequences must be
fulfilled” does not work, at least in some cases.

 

I think this discussion rotates around how to interpret Rules along a
timeline:

Ben, you describe below this Permission: 
- action: to drive into the congestion zone of London
- constraint: (on weekdays/working days, as I recall) from 6am to 8 pm

- duty: pay a fee

- duty.consequence: pay a fine of 50 GBP

How to evaluate that: a context has to be defined including “does the car
enter the congestion zone = executing the Permission action”, the date/day
and time of taking this action and the status “having paid the fee = having
exercised the action of the duty”. Only with concrete data of such a context
the Permission can be evaluated.

Concrete data: zone entered, is in on workday at 13:03, fee not paid.

Evaluation: constraint satisfied, action exercised, duty has not been
fulfilled: Permission Not Allowed

Next step: if a City of London person checks the car at 13:03 a fine has to
be paid as consequence.

BUT: the car will get some grace period, if another person checks the car at
13:06 the fine does not have to be paid again, the City of London IT will
have registered that a fine was already paid = the car gets a Permission,
for a defined/known period.

At the ODRL level this would work this way:

Concrete data: zone entered, on a workday at 13:06, fee not paid,
consequence fulfilled

Evaluation: constraint satisfied, action exercised, duty has been fulfilled
(action/fee payment not exercised, but consequence-fine was paid):
Permission Allowed

 

By my view your example could be successfully interpreted by using the “if
consequences are Fulfilled the duty-action does not have to be exercised”
processing rule.

 

Re “The option Michael describes below sounds like a Remedy”: first a
consequence and a remedy are both Duties. And both are triggered by some
“misbehaviour”: in a duty/obligation Duty by not exercising the action of
the Duty and in a Prohibition by exercising the disallowed action. This way
consequences and remedies compensate something what should (not) have been
done and are therefore quite similar.

 

Regarding the mentioned timeline above: the compensation of a misbehaviour
may not last forever:

*	Having fulfilled the consequences of a Duty may not set its state to
Fulfilled forever, maybe only for a kind of grace period, see the
congestions zone example above
*	Having fulfilled a remedy does not mean one can execute the
disallowed action now again and again.

 

Open issue: is it ODRL’s duty to define “what’s next after having fulfilled
consequences/remedies” or could this be a definition which needs to be bound
to an action?

 

Best,

Michael

 

From: benedict.whittamsmith@thomsonreuters.com
[mailto:benedict.whittamsmith@thomsonreuters.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 3:42 PM
To: ivan@w3.org; mdirector@iptc.org
Cc: renato.iannella@monegraph.com
Subject: RE: [w3c/poe] Unsatisfiable consequence example (#275)

 

Hi guys, 

 

I can't help thinking we're making very heavy weather of a fairly simple
concept: failure to fulfil a duty can trigger a consequence - both the
original duty and the consequence must now be fulfilled.

 

It's a very useful concept: you can't drive into London between 6am and 8pm
(if only!); if you do, you must pay a fine of £50.

 

But obviously, paying the fine of £50 does not then allow you to drive in
London. The original duty still stands.

 

The option Michael describes below sounds like a Remedy - so we already have
it covered.

 

We need (and have) the concept of consequence for modelling regulations.
Let's not mess with it.

 

Ben

 

  _____  

From: Ivan Herman [ivan@w3.org]
Sent: 29 September 2017 14:20
To: Michael Steidl
Cc: Dr. Renato Iannella; Whittam Smith, Benedict (TR Technology & Ops)
Subject: Fwd: [w3c/poe] Unsatisfiable consequence example (#275)

I do not follow the details here. But you seem to suggest a change that is
_not_ an editorial change. 

 

We have to be very cautious with any change in the technical specification.
If there are technical deficiencies in the spec, then we may have to issue a
new CR. Can we try to avoid that?

 

If this is still a purely editorial change then of course there is no issue.

 

What is editorial? The question we should ask ourselves is: if we do this
change, does this invalidate other implementation that are out there in any
way?

 

Ivan





Begin forwarded message:

 

From: Michael Steidl <notifications@github.com
<mailto:notifications@github.com> >

Subject: Re: [w3c/poe] Unsatisfiable consequence example (#275)

Date: 29 September 2017 at 14:16:28 GMT+2

To: w3c/poe <poe@noreply.github.com <mailto:poe@noreply.github.com> >

Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com
<mailto:subscribed@noreply.github.com> >

Reply-To: w3c/poe
<reply+0007f2130e9f302c34f66b52736faa9142185827f64f1c3192cf0000000115e5fb9b9
2a169ce0f975aeb@reply.github.com
<mailto:reply+0007f2130e9f302c34f66b52736faa9142185827f64f1c3192cf0000000115
e5fb9b92a169ce0f975aeb@reply.github.com> >

List-Id: w3c/poe <poe.w3c.github.com
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__poe.w3c.github.com&d=Dw
MFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=6zKsY0rYbamT39VLwFyiNRQ
q5kP9V8VfXNbeD0GwlqvjGIQo1uv383jKtxD77PlM&m=bVQmIGQc210DJjaRDn-O06kVXHHVpPz6
BdkHYlLq8xM&s=I4h1c48bJ2naFxOTX_p1bTWTlbDKZPFv1kGAYbt3oM8&e=> >

Message-Id: <w3c/poe/issues/275/333110701@github.com
<mailto:w3c/poe/issues/275/333110701@github.com> >

 

This issue is also covered by #267
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_poe_iss
ues_267&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=6zKsY0rYbam
T39VLwFyiNRQq5kP9V8VfXNbeD0GwlqvjGIQo1uv383jKtxD77PlM&m=bVQmIGQc210DJjaRDn-O
06kVXHHVpPz6BdkHYlLq8xM&s=jYz1-5gvD2qdbmjzVHTWu7wKKJMp8TAnHfGq_DCT5OQ&e=> 
The problem in the background is: the current definition of when
consequences have to be executed and only their fulfilment has an impact on
the state of the Duty (in https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#duty
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__w3c.github.io_poe_mode
l_-23duty&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=6zKsY0rYb
amT39VLwFyiNRQq5kP9V8VfXNbeD0GwlqvjGIQo1uv383jKtxD77PlM&m=bVQmIGQc210DJjaRDn
-O06kVXHHVpPz6BdkHYlLq8xM&s=UNJ0zaugcEOJ6PHVUPBojo0ohpp_6j-tlhZYdJRLmZY&e=>
) . But a description of the consequence property further down in this
section raises the need for an also fulfilled original Duty. At the call on
25 September it was requested to make this "both must be fulfilled" the
standard.

I suggest the WG considers what would go wrong if we stick to the approach
of the top definition of Duty: fulfilled consequences are sufficient to set
the Duty state to fulfilled, the action of the main Duty has not impact on
that anymore.
(My more business oriented view: after not having exercised the action of
the main Duty, the consequences must be fulfilled. This sounds like a common
business rule. But having to exercise the action of the main Duty AND having
to fulfil the consequences will be overarching for assignees.)

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_poe_iss
ues_275-23issuecomment-2D333110701&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4
FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=6zKsY0rYbamT39VLwFyiNRQq5kP9V8VfXNbeD0GwlqvjGIQo1uv383jKtxD7
7PlM&m=bVQmIGQc210DJjaRDn-O06kVXHHVpPz6BdkHYlLq8xM&s=56492v8rVgmtYNsAdF80AUD
Qx3P15s8BbVti3KdSlmE&e=> , or mute the thread
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_notificatio
ns_unsubscribe-2Dauth_AAfyEwIqVIgpCFQYaHie-5FDalaYheXCNaks5snN-2DbgaJpZM4PoZ
Ui&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=6zKsY0rYbamT39VL
wFyiNRQq5kP9V8VfXNbeD0GwlqvjGIQo1uv383jKtxD77PlM&m=bVQmIGQc210DJjaRDn-O06kVX
HHVpPz6BdkHYlLq8xM&s=oOxgg5sQKM9ZdGEgNCsp03sbjpqplFkq1GZM88eNfZQ&e=> .

 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead

Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153

ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__orcid.org_0000-2D0003-2
D0782-2D2704&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=6zKsY0
rYbamT39VLwFyiNRQq5kP9V8VfXNbeD0GwlqvjGIQo1uv383jKtxD77PlM&m=bVQmIGQc210DJja
RDn-O06kVXHHVpPz6BdkHYlLq8xM&s=qbO1u5yqPMFjw6XzCxgm4-4LkhvCDeTGhRA9mXFdl1o&e
=>