OASIS LegalRuleML TC

Author: taraathan Date: 2013-07-05 18:28:18 -0400 (Fri, 05 Jul 2013) New Revision: 72 Web View: https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/legalruleml/?rev=72&sc=1 Added: trunk/documents/Glossary.doc Log: adding Glossary document

Hi, all. I've been trying to incite some discussion on the skype chat, but got no takers. I'll embed and extend my skype comments here, for the record and for the agenda of the next meeting. I've just posted the Glossary document in the repo, and I have been going through it and the RDFS schemas while preparing my slides on the metamodel. The definitions in the Glossary don't all make sense to me, especially when considered as the basis of a taxonomy, as embodied in the metamodel. Here are some particular questions. [7/5/13 6:41:15 PM] Tara Athan: In the Glossary, we define Authority as "any body with the power to create, endorse, or enforce legal norms" but we don't say what a "body" is. Would it be correct to replace "body" with the generic "entity", or is there some implicit restriction associated with "body"? [7/5/13 6:48:45 PM] Tara Athan: Regarding "AuxiliaryParty - a entity in addition to the bearer of a deontic specification", isn't this a role? It is a different kind of role than the metadata <lrml:Role>, but nevertheless it is not an essential characteristic of an entity, but is a part that some entity plays (i.e. a role that it fills) relative to a particular deontic specification, for some time period that is a part, typically not the entirety, of its history. Suggestion: Bearer - a role of a deontic specification filled by the entity to which the specification is primarily directed AuxiliaryParty - a role of a deontic specification filled by entities to which the specification is related, but not primarily directed [7/5/13 7:12:06 PM] Tara Athan: "Compliance - a situation …" - is there a neutral concept of "situation" that I could reference in the metamodel, or would this be better left as a subclass of "Thing"? [7/5/13 7:46:29 PM] Tara Athan: Bearer - a role *in* a deontic specification filled by the entity to which the specification is primarily directed AuxiliaryParty - a role *in* a deontic specification filled by entities to which the specification is related, but not primarily directed [7/5/13 8:00:43 PM] Tara Athan: "LegalSource - Any source of legal norms represented in any format." I don't understand this definition as written. As we've constructed the syntax, Isn't the legal norm (playing the role of) a source, and if so, in relation to what (a LegalRuleML text)? But this definition gives the impression that the legal norm *has* the source (from "source of legal norms" --> the source belongs to the legal norm, the legal norm has the source) Some other suggestions, beyond what was in the Skype chat FactualStatement - a statement that expresses a fact. This wording helps our taxonomy - it tells us what FactualStatement is a subclass of - Statement. One question for clarification - is there any distinction between "legal" factual statements and those that do not have legal status? If a factual statement is formalized in LegalRuleML, can it be assumed to have legal status? Regarding the glossary entry for lrml:Context, I believe we discussed earlier the idea that {Text} + {Context} = {Rule} However, this is not reflected in the Glossary definition. Also the Glossary definition gives an impression, to me, that a context is only applicable to a single text. Suggestion: Original Context - a context or legal interpretation that applies associations of the proper author, authorities, jurisdiction, source, and other characteristics to a rule and/or to parts of a rule. --> Context - a context or legal interpretation that may apply associations of the proper author, authorities, jurisdiction, source, and other characteristics to texts and/or to parts of texts, and through this application, generate rules. Question: is there ever a case when a context is modular - that certain characteristics are specified in one block, other characteristics in another, and the rule is generated by the application of both? Alternately, can a context "import" another context, perhaps through the key/keyref mechanism? Tara

Hi Tara, first of all many thanks for taking in care this task to revise the meta-model. During my conversion from LegalRuleML to RDF I noticed several issues, so I have really appreciated your re-factoring work. Thanks also for the very useful discussion! My comments below in the text. Yours, Monica Il 06/07/2013 13:58, Tara Athan ha scritto: Hi, all. I've been trying to incite some discussion on the skype chat, but got no takers. I'll embed and extend my skype comments here, for the record and for the agenda of the next meeting. I've just posted the Glossary document in the repo, and I have been going through it and the RDFS schemas while preparing my slides on the metamodel. The definitions in the Glossary don't all make sense to me, especially when considered as the basis of a taxonomy, as embodied in the metamodel. Here are some particular questions. [7/5/13 6:41:15 PM] Tara Athan: In the Glossary, we define Authority as "any body with the power to create, endorse, or enforce legal norms" but we don't say what a "body" is. Would it be correct to replace "body" with the generic "entity", or is there some implicit restriction associated with "body"? *** entity is too generic from my point of view: it could include also "abstract entity" or "non-physical entity". Each country lists, in the constitution or in high level law, which bodies are authorized to endorse legal documents and also which legal documents. I find very useful this definition of authority: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/authority Proposal: "a person or organization having political or administrative power or competence to create, endorse, or enforce legal norms." [7/5/13 6:48:45 PM] Tara Athan: Regarding "AuxiliaryParty - a entity in addition to the bearer of a deontic specification", isn't this a role? It is a different kind of role than the metadata <lrml:Role>, but nevertheless it is not an essential characteristic of an entity, but is a part that some entity plays (i.e. a role that it fills) relative to a particular deontic specification, for some time period that is a part, typically not the entirety, of its history. Suggestion: Bearer - a role of a deontic specification filled by the entity to which the specification is primarily directed AuxiliaryParty - a role of a deontic specification filled by entities to which the specification is related, but not primarily directed [7/5/13 7:12:06 PM] Tara Athan: "Compliance - a situation …" - is there a neutral concept of "situation" that I could reference in the metamodel, or would this be better left as a subclass of "Thing"? [7/5/13 7:46:29 PM] Tara Athan: Bearer - a role *in* a deontic specification filled by the entity to which the specification is primarily directed AuxiliaryParty - a role *in* a deontic specification filled by entities to which the specification is related, but not primarily directed *** good for me [7/5/13 8:00:43 PM] Tara Athan: "LegalSource - Any source of legal norms represented in any format." I don't understand this definition as written. *** LegalSource - any source of legal norms expressed/formulated in any format (textual, picture, video, audio, etc.) As we've constructed the syntax, Isn't the legal norm (playing the role of) a source, and if so, in relation to what (a LegalRuleML text)? *** the norm is a command to do or not to do something endorsed by an authority, directed by an addresser (in our case is the AuxiliaryParty) to an addressee (in our case is the Bearer) (Kelsen). The norm could be expressed in different way: text, picture (road signal), video, audio, behavior. One of those format is the "legal text" endorsed by an authority. The text is not the unique form even if the most frequent. But this definition gives the impression that the legal norm *has* the source (from "source of legal norms" --> the source belongs to the legal norm, the legal norm has the source) *** Legal norms areExpressed in LegalSource *** LegalSource hasAFormat X *** LegalSource isAnExpression of Legal norms *** LegalRule is anInterpretation of LegalSource Some other suggestions, beyond what was in the Skype chat FactualStatement - a statement that expresses a fact. This wording helps our taxonomy - it tells us what FactualStatement is a subclass of - Statement. One question for clarification - is there any distinction between "legal" factual statements and those that do not have legal status? If a factual statement is formalized in LegalRuleML, can it be assumed to have legal status? *** in our context (of LegalRuleML) all the facts should be relevant under the legal point of view. If we want to distinguish between facts "legally valid" because coming from a particular process (e.g. evidence in the trial, evidence collected by police - qualified as "evidences") from the other (e.g. opinions, interpretation of the fact, etc. - qualified as simple facts), we can, but from my point of view all facts of the knowledge base are equally valuable for the legal reasoning. I am wondering (to Guido) if there is a hierarchy also for the fact like for the rules (e.g. overrides the facts??). Regarding the glossary entry for lrml:Context, I believe we discussed earlier the idea that {Text} + {Context} = {Rule} LegalSource+Context (that includes interpretation)={Rule} However, this is not reflected in the Glossary definition. Also the Glossary definition gives an impression, to me, that a context is only applicable to a single text. Suggestion: Original Context - a context or legal interpretation that applies associations of the proper author, authorities, jurisdiction, source, and other characteristics to a rule and/or to parts of a rule. --> Context - a context or legal interpretation that may apply associations of the proper author, authorities, jurisdiction, source, and other characteristics to texts and/or to parts of texts, and through this application, generate rules. *** Great for me. Just one point: to texts and/or to parts of texts --->to texts and/or to parts of texts (or other format of legal sources) Question: is there ever a case when a context is modular - that certain characteristics are specified in one block, other characteristics in another, and the rule is generated by the application of both? Alternately, can a context "import" another context, perhaps through the key/keyref mechanism? *** In the meta-model this situation could happen frequently. So it is really interesting to import fragments of other contexts. However it is better to have some neutral/general blocks (without toStatement or empty _p) and later to reuse them in different Context definitions with the key/keyref mechanism. Tara --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php . -- =================================== Associate professor of Legal Informatics School of Law Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna C.I.R.S.F.I.D. http://www.cirsfid.unibo.it/ Palazzo Dal Monte Gaudenzi - Via Galliera, 3 I - 40121 BOLOGNA (ITALY) Tel +39 051 277217 Fax +39 051 260782 E-mail monica.palmirani@unibo.it ====================================

On 7/8/13 1:37 AM, monica.palmirani wrote: [7/5/13 8:00:43 PM] Tara Athan: LegalSource - Any source of legal norms represented in any format. I don't understand this definition as written. *** LegalSource - any source of legal norms expressed/formulated in any format (textual, picture, video, audio, etc.) As we've constructed the syntax, Isn't the legal norm (playing the role of) a source, and if so, in relation to what (a LegalRuleML text)? *** the norm is a command to do or not to do something endorsed by an authority, directed by an addresser (in our case is the AuxiliaryParty) to an addressee (in our case is the Bearer) (Kelsen). The norm could be expressed in different way: text, picture (road signal), video, audio, behavior. One of those format is the legal text endorsed by an authority. The text is not the unique form even if the most frequent. But this definition gives the impression that the legal norm * has * the source (from source of legal norms --> the source belongs to the legal norm, the legal norm has the source) *** Legal norms areExpressed in LegalSource *** LegalSource hasAFormat X *** LegalSource isAnExpression of Legal norms *** LegalRule is anInterpretation of LegalSource Thanks for the clarification, Monica.  I would suggest this: In the metamodel, suppose there are roles of type LegalSource . We give an identifier (IRI) to a particular instance (role) of this type when we write <LegalSource key= #src1 .../> The role belongs to the LegalRuleMLDocument. This is why we give it a different IRI when the same _expression_ of a norm is used as a source in a different LegalRuleMLDocument. (One paper I read called this the context of the role, but I won't use that term because of the confusion that would create.) We express the relationship between the role and the LegalRuleML Document when we write <LegalRuleML key= #doc1 >    <LegalSources key= #srcblk1 >        <LegalSource key= #src1 .../> In the metamodel, this belonging is indirectly expressed: A LegalRuleMLDocument has a LegalSourceCollection. The LegalSourceCollection hasMember a LegalSource. If we made the metamodel more expressive by using OWL, we could using property chaining to infer a direct relationship between the document and the source, but that is not so important at this point. The fillers of these LegalSource roles are frbr:Expressions of legal norms. The role is not the owl:sameAs the _expression_ - they have different, mutually exclusive, rdf:types. My proposal: Glossary   LegalSource - a role in a LegalRuleML document filled by an _expression_, in any format (text, image, video, audio, behavior, etc.),  of a legal norm . RDFS   <rdfs:Class rdf:about= #LegalSource >     <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource= &lrmlmm;# />     <rdfs:label>LegalSource</rdfs:label>     <rdfs:comment>The class of roles in LegalRuleML documents filled by an _expression_, in any format (text, image, video, audio, behavior, etc.),  of a legal norm .     </rdfs:comment>     <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource= #Role />   </rdfs:Class>   Tara

On 7/8/13 1:37 AM, monica.palmirani wrote: [7/5/13 7:46:29 PM] Tara Athan: Bearer - a role * in * a deontic specification filled by the entity to which the specification is primarily directed AuxiliaryParty - a role * in * a deontic specification filled by entities to which the specification is related, but not primarily directed *** good for me We didn't discuss these Glossary definitions today. These deontic roles are agentive - is this change in definition agreeable? Tara

Hi, all. I've been trying to incite some discussion on the skype chat, but got no takers. I'll embed and extend my skype comments here, for the record and for the agenda of the next meeting. I've just posted the Glossary document in the repo, and I have been going through it and the RDFS schemas while preparing my slides on the metamodel. The definitions in the Glossary don't all make sense to me, especially when considered as the basis of a taxonomy, as embodied in the metamodel. Here are some particular questions. [7/5/13 6:41:15 PM] Tara Athan: In the Glossary, we define Authority as "any body with the power to create, endorse, or enforce legal norms" but we don't say what a "body" is. Would it be correct to replace "body" with the generic "entity", or is there some implicit restriction associated with "body"? Or is this an frbr:CorporateBody ? [7/5/13 6:48:45 PM] Tara Athan: Regarding "AuxiliaryParty - a entity in addition to the bearer of a deontic specification", isn't this a role? It is a different kind of role than the metadata <lrml:Role>, but nevertheless it is not an essential characteristic of an entity, but is a part that some entity plays (i.e. a role that it fills) relative to a particular deontic specification, for some time period that is a part, typically not the entirety, of its history. Suggestion: Bearer - a role of a deontic specification filled by the entity to which the specification is primarily directed AuxiliaryParty - a role of a deontic specification filled by entities to which the specification is related, but not primarily directed [7/5/13 7:12:06 PM] Tara Athan: "Compliance - a situation …" - is there a neutral concept of "situation" that I could reference in the metamodel, or would this be better left as a subclass of "Thing"? [7/5/13 7:46:29 PM] Tara Athan: Bearer - a role *in* a deontic specification filled by the entity to which the specification is primarily directed AuxiliaryParty - a role *in* a deontic specification filled by entities to which the specification is related, but not primarily directed [7/5/13 8:00:43 PM] Tara Athan: "LegalSource - Any source of legal norms represented in any format." I don't understand this definition as written. As we've constructed the syntax, Isn't the legal norm (playing the role of) a source, and if so, in relation to what (a LegalRuleML text)? But this definition gives the impression that the legal norm *has* the source (from "source of legal norms" --> the source belongs to the legal norm, the legal norm has the source) Some other suggestions, beyond what was in the Skype chat FactualStatement - a statement that expresses a fact. This wording helps our taxonomy - it tells us what FactualStatement is a subclass of - Statement. One question for clarification - is there any distinction between "legal" factual statements and those that do not have legal status? If a factual statement is formalized in LegalRuleML, can it be assumed to have legal status? Regarding the glossary entry for lrml:Context, I believe we discussed earlier the idea that {Text} + {Context} = {Rule} However, this is not reflected in the Glossary definition. Also the Glossary definition gives an impression, to me, that a context is only applicable to a single text. Suggestion: Original Context - a context or legal interpretation that applies associations of the proper author, authorities, jurisdiction, source, and other characteristics to a rule and/or to parts of a rule. --> Context - a context or legal interpretation that may apply associations of the proper author, authorities, jurisdiction, source, and other characteristics to texts and/or to parts of texts, and through this application, generate rules. Question: is there ever a case when a context is modular - that certain characteristics are specified in one block, other characteristics in another, and the rule is generated by the application of both? Alternately, can a context "import" another context, perhaps through the key/keyref mechanism? [7/6/13 9:29:49 AM] Tara Athan: Thoughts on the relationship between entities in the LegalRuleML metamodel and entities in external legal ontologies: When we mint a URL using a "key" attribute in a LegalRuleML text for, say, an "lrml:Obligation" <lrml:Obligation key = "obl1"> <ruleml:slot> <lrml:Bearer/> <ruleml:Var>Customer</ruleml:Var> </ruleml:slot> <ruleml:Implies> …</ruleml:Implies> </lrml:Obligation> what sort of thing does that URL denote? It's not referring to any particular obligation in the "real world" - such an obligation would require the binding of "<Var>Customer</Var>" to a particular person. It appears to me that the URL denotes a formula about obligations - this also makes sense in a taxonomy (metamodel) where "Obligation", or better "lrmlmm:ObligationFormula" is a subclass of "lrmlmm:DeonticFormula' Suggested definition for the metamodel: ObligationFormula - The class of deontic formulas that express situations, acts, or courses of action to which a bearer is legally bound, and if it is not achieved or performed results in a violation. Similar considerations apply to all the deontic formulas. In the glossary definition of "Permission", we mention the two cases of weak and strong permission. Would it make sense to have an attribute or child of <lrml:Permission> to allow the specification of the kind of permission? [7/6/13 10:59:22 AM] Tara Athan: Re: Reparation - a legal statement of the penalty that may apply if a rule is violated. A rule is violated where the condition of applicability (antecedent of the rule) holds and the deontic specification (consequent of the rule) has been violated. There are a few things that are implicit in this definition. First, it's not true that for any rule, its consequent is a deontic specification (deontic formula?). So we are talking about only certain kinds of rules here. We don't yet have a LegalRuleML name for these rules ( prescriptive rule?). We do have schema type for them that uses this name (PrescriptiveRule.type.def). Second, it seems interesting to me that the penalty is linked to the rule rather than the obligation. This means the penalty for violating an obligation may depend on the situation under which that obligation arose, not just the specification of the obligation itself. And this is why the child of a reparation must be a rule rather than a violation or obligation. [7/6/13 11:11:02 AM] Tara Athan: More on LegalSource - if LegalSource is a role, then it is "filledBy" a LegalStatement, rather than being the "sameAs" the LegalStatement. [7/6/13 12:42:03 PM] Tara Athan: Re "TemporalCharacteristic - legal qualifications and descriptions of the relationships between a temporal entity and legal elements to which the relationships can apply." Looking at this definition now after having been away from it for a while and forgotten what we were thinking about at the time, I have to say that I haven't a clue what this says. Breaking it into parts, the definition first says that a temporal characteristic is (one or a set of?) legal qualifications and descriptions. Does this mean legal descriptions or just descriptions? "And" is used - does it have to contain both qualifications and descriptions? What is a legal qualification? This is a very vague definition, but as embodied in the syntax it is a much more limited concept. In the syntax, it is an information object with a data structure of type "associative array" with one key for specifying a temporal entity, another for specifying a rule status, and a third for specifying a status development. [7/6/13 1:07:44 PM] Tara Athan: The glossary does not contain a definition for "Association". In the xsd schemas we have two definitions "an efficient description of a set of dyadic relationships of various types (source, strength, ...), whereby each non-target entity in the association is related to each target in the association" applied to Association.Node.choice, and "a set of typed dyadic relationships from each non-target entity to each target" applied to Association.Node.def This is unusual in that for most other elements we have one definition associated with the .Node.def component, and no extra explanation with the Node.choice element. I can't find a record of the discussion about this definition in the Skype chat. [7/6/13 3:46:21 PM] Tara Athan: In the Glossary and meta-model, we have used the name "Role" for what is really only a subclass of roles - the agentive role. There are other roles in the metamodel, and it is difficult to make this clear. Suggestion: In the metamodel, we rename lrmlmm:Role as lrmlmm:AgentiveRole. and we have a superClass of lrmlmm:Role, which has subclasses "AgentiveRole", LegalSourceRole", … Other roles include "lrmlmm:Authority" is a role played by a frbr:CorporateBody, "lrmlmm:Jurisdiction" is a role played by a geographic region or subject-matter domain Re: the various kinds of Statements (ConstitutiveStatement, etc) in our Glossary. There is a disconnect between the metamodel and the Glossary. The glossary gives a definition as if we were referring to a legal statement. But in the model "Statement" is a LegalRuleML statement, which is not a legal statement. (The url we use in <lrml:ConstitutiveStatement key="cs1">...</lrml:...> does not denote a legal statement.) Suggestion: LegalRuleML Statement - a class (in the sense of rdfs:Class) of RuleML Rules sharing a common template. Template - a reification of an underspecified RuleML Defeasible Rule. hasTemplate - a template of the LegalRuleML statement. Tara

Hi LegalRuleML TC. I have been struggling to develop slides for the "metamodel" portion of the LegalRuleML tutorial, in particular because the original metamodel, with all those painfully-produced diagrams https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/legalruleml/trunk/schemas/rdfs/diagrams/#_trunk_schemas_rdfs_diagrams_ became somewhat outdated as we finalized the syntax, schemas and glossary. What I have so far is an outline with about 50% weight on explaining the role of the metamodel in the language design process, and the rest on displaying the diagrams, which I am now working to update. I am attaching a PowerPoint with text for the slides. I will be committing updated diagrams to the repo as they become available. Comments are welcome on both. Tara Attachment: LegalRuleMLMetaModel2013.pptx Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation

There were some formatting problems with that last attachment. Trying again Tara Attachment: LegalRuleMLMetaModel2013b.ppt Description: MS-Powerpoint presentation

Updated metamodel slides Tara Attachment: LegalRuleMLMetaModel2013b.ppt Description: MS-Powerpoint presentation

Hi Tara, I looked at the metamodel, I have notice one thing. the properties of overrides (over and under) ranges over statements. It seems to me to broad. It should be on rules. All the best Guido On 08/07/2013, at 2:18 PM, Tara Athan <taraathan@gmail.com> wrote: > Updated metamodel slides > > Tara > <LegalRuleMLMetaModel2013b.ppt><ATT00001.txt> ________________________________ The information in this e-mail may be confidential and subject to legal professional privilege and/or copyright. National ICT Australia Limited accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments.