Re: 'right' vs 'permission'; was: RE: [rights-requirements] Parallelor Complimentary System

[Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>]

Thomas,

DeMartini, Thomas wrote:

>>(Ignoring for the moment all the legal reasons why it is really 
>>a reciprocal permission in other states so that the example works. ;-) )
>>
>
>:-)  But, as you point out, all the points do hinge on ignoring this.  When we don't ignore this reality, I think Bob's question still remains unanswered.
>

Hmmm, I thought I said that, must be an echo in here. ;-)

Seriously: You are correct for the driving example but the other parts I 
posted don't depend upon the same assumption. (At least I don't think so.)

What did you think about the idea that the outcome of right vs. 
permissions could be the same but differ in terms of the process by 
which the outcome would be reached?

Seems to me that since we are (this is my assumption, may not be shared 
by anyone else) attempting to describe a process for reaching any 
outcome, and that we should be focusing on the requirements of that 
process and not a particular end result?

At a technical level, one of my problems with the denial of permission 
if permission cannot be determined in the current core syntax. May be 
required for some cases, such as medical/financial records by legal or 
user requirements, but then other requirements such as "fair use" don't 
extend to medical records. With medical records, save perhaps for an 
emergency override of some sort, which I assume would be application 
specific, then the current core makes sense. For other domains, I am not 
sure that it does or at least it conflicts with other legitimate 
requirements. That is not to say that it should be abandoned but the 
presumptions that underlie it should be evaluated and perhaps that part 
of the core made more nuanced.

Or is Bob's point that if the outcome does not differ between his 
examples then the process does not matter? In other words, if 
permissions or rights arrive at the same place, is there any difference? 
(I think there is but I will be working on that answer, while we await 
Bob's response.)

Hope you are enjoying China!

Patrick



>
>Thanks,
>Thomas.
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu