Hi Tara, > Adrian- we already considered using a more general <lrml:Collection> > element > for all the various LegalRuleML collections (References, Associations, > etc). > However because we are aiming to have a schema that can be expressed in > XSD > 1.0, we cannot use an attribute to determine the content model of an > element. That is why we are forced to have a different name for each type > of > collection that has a different content model. At a minimum the name of > the > element needs to indicate that it contains only temporal entities so that > it can have a content model of zero to many ruleml:Time children. The > metamodel concept &lrmlmm;Collection would be the abstract superclass for > all of these collections. As solution could be to use XSD 1.1. as discussed in the LegalRuleML telecon on October 10th [10/10/2012 6:12:53 PM] Adrian Paschke: <Rule style="definition"> would be much more self-explanatory for me then <DefinitionRuleText> [10/10/2012 6:13:08 PM] Harold Boley:
http://www.xfront.com/xml-schema-1-1/ [10/10/2012 6:14:20 PM] Harold Boley:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-xmlschema11-1-20090130/#Inherited_attributes > > Regarding <ruleml:Time>, aside from the <content> extension point, is it a > syntactic shortcut for an atomic formula such as > > <Equivalent> > <Time key="t1" type="&time-ont;time-concept"> > ...some arguments... > </Time> > <Atom> > <oid><Ind iri="#t1"/></oid> > <Rel iri="&ruleml;Time"/> > <slot> > <Ind iri="&ruleml:type"/> > <Ind iri="&time-ont;time-concept"/> > </slot> > ...same arguments... > </Atom> > </Equivalent> > > or am I missing something? > No, it is not a syntactic short cut for an Atom. It is a reified function, which interprets the arguments as a time. -Adrian > > > On 10/20/2012 1:34 PM, Adrian Paschke wrote: > > Hi Tara, > > Yes, I also think we need both. That is why I propose to use a more > general > <Collection> which can be typed (type="..") with different sorts. > > 1. Is there a default selection between continuous and discrete timescale > that would resolve this ambiguity? > > Yes, the default one is a time interval semantics. > (On a side note: this distinction in interval semantics and point in time > semantics is important as it avoids ambiguity in the algebra operators for > complex events, as we have shown in our interval base event calculus > semantic for complex event processing) > > 2. According to the schema, the content model appears to be essentially > unrestricted: > <ruleml:Time><ruleml:content>...anything...</ruleml:content></ruleml:Time> > > No, the main content type is an <arg> with e.g. Ind, Data, Var or Expr or > a > slotted representation with a <slot>. Therefore it reuses the content > model > of <arg> and <slot> from <Atom>. > The additional choice of a <content> role tag with unrestricted XML > content > model is an extension point of the Reaction RuleML syntax, which allows > embedding one of the many existing XML serializations for time data from > the > various communities which deal with time. > > 3. Is it possible to use the element <ruleml:Time> to describe a timepoint > that is 6 months after some named timepoint? > > Yes, this is a temporal operation > > <After> > <ruleml:Time key="#t1">...</ruleml:Time> > <ruleml:Time><ruleml:Data > xsi:type="xs:duration">6M</ruleml:Data></ruleml:Time> > </After> > > > BTW, I just encountered that I had sent my regrets for the last telecon on > Wednesday not from my gmx address but from my university address which > apparently seems to be rejected by the mailing list. Sorry, for that. I > attach it again with the example version which preserves the advantages > and > conveniently combines it with the rest of RuleML. > > -Adrian > > -----Original Message----- > From:
legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org > [ mailto:
legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of Tara Athan > Sent: Samstag, 20. Oktober 2012 17:26 > To:
legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [legalruleml] Time Instants or Time Points > > Thanks Adrian. > > In legal applications, it appears to me that both discrete and continuous > of > timescales are needed. > When describing an observation of the time at which a physical event takes > place (e.g. publication), then a discrete timescale is appropriate because > this captures the fact that all observations have limited precision. > Discrete timescales capture this uncertainty as intervals in time in a > similar way that significant digits are used to record numerical > measurements in general, (except that the time interval is assumed to lie > on > the future side of the time observation rather than being centered on the > measurement as is done with significant digits.) > > When defining a fiat event (e.g start of enforceability), then a > continuous > timescale may be appropriate because the definition can be made with > infinite precision. > > I have included the <ruleml:Time> element in the LegalRuleML schema, but > so > far I have only implement a restricted content model of the form > > <ruleml:Time><ruleml:Data > xsi:type="xs:dateTime>2012-10-02T10:45:34-00:00</ruleml:Data></ruleml:Time> > > I have a couple of questions: > > 1. Based on what you say below, the interpretation of this construct > appears > to be ambiguous because there is no @type on the Time element. > > If a discrete timescale is adopted, this would represent an interval of > length one second. > > If a continuous timescale is adopted, this would be interpreted as a time > instant, in particular the beginning of the time interval described by > <ruleml:Data xsi:type="xs:dateTime>2012-10-02T10:45:34-00:00</ruleml:Data> > > Is there a default selection between continuous and discrete timescale > that > would resolve this ambiguity? > > Since the argument > <ruleml:Data xsi:type="xs:dateTime>2012-10-02T10:45:34-00:00</ruleml:Data> > already denotes a temporal entity, a time period of length 1 second (the > value space of xs:dateTime is actual time periods and is based on ISO > 8601), > I would expect the default, if there is one, to be the discrete timescale. > > > 2. I would like to include more of the content model for this element as > defined in the Reaction RuleML schema >
http://www.csw.inf.fu-berlin.de/RRML1.0/xsd/modules/time_module.xsd > > but the interpretation of this more general syntax is not clear to me. > According to the schema, the content model appears to be essentially > unrestricted: > <ruleml:Time><ruleml:content>...anything...</ruleml:content></ruleml:Time> > > Is it possible to use the element <ruleml:Time> to describe a timepoint > that > is 6 months after some named timepoint? > ( <ruleml:Time key="#t1">...</ruleml:Time> ) > > > Tara > > On 10/20/2012 9:24 AM, Adrian Paschke wrote: > > Hi Tara, > > Yes, there are many existing ontologies and vocabularies/schemas available > for time. Since there is nothing special about the representation of time > in > the legal domain which would require a domain-specific model, we should > reuse them. > > Reaction RuleML therefore has a generic approach which supports this > reuse. > There is a basic distinction in whether the temporal aspect are based on > the > relationships between "time instants" (type="ruleml:TimeInstant") or "time > intervals" (type="ruleml:TimeInterval">). Depending on this core > distinction > a time becomes a linear continuous time model with points in time called > "time instants"(<Time type="ruleml:TimeInstant">) or a discrete time > interval model with "time points" (<Time type="ruleml:TimePoint">) as a > relative time interval with an absolute reference or a relative reference > to > some given time interval. > > A duration is an amounts of time, .e.g. <ruleml:Time> <ruleml:Data > xsi:type="xs:duration">P5Y2M10D</ruleml:Data> </ruleml:Time> or other > quantities of duration values with other types of time units including > nominal time units, e.g.3 years <ruleml:Time><Ind > iri="owl-time:Year">3</Ind><ruleml:Time> and discrete time functions > (<ruleML:Time><Expr>). > > <Interval> in Reaction RuleML is a generic concept for modeling intervals > (Time/Spatial/Event/Action/Situation Intervals). Time intervals are then > either based on the segments of a linear continuum of time instants or > the > discrete time points (which span a smaller time interval). > > Reaction RuleML also has a rich set of algebra operators for intervals > (Allens relations such as During, Overlaps, ...) and general time > arithmetic's and aggregators (such as Every, Timer, Any, ...-), and a > general <Operator> (XML extension point) for adding further special > operators from the many existing domain specific languages. > > So, depending on whether the Legal RuleML collection is a set of time > points > it would be <lrml:TimePoints> or <lrml:TimeInstants> in the case of time > instants. > I would propose to be more generic and say <lrml:Collection > type="ruleml:TimePoint">, so that we can have different types of > Collections. > > -Adrian > > > From:
legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org > [ mailto:
legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of Tara Athan > Sent: Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2012 01:02 > To:
legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [legalruleml] Time Instants or Time Points > > There is a relatively recent date-time ontology published by OMG > (
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=911074 ) that addresses > time > scale granularity and also solves the problem of duration (is 1 month > greater, equal or less than 30 days?) > > While LegalRuleML is not supposed to be dependent on any particular > ontology, this work does provide a useful conceptualization that allows > certain intervals of time to be specified with a single datum. For example > the date 2012-10-12 corresponds to a particular interval of time which can > be specialized to a particular 24 hr interval when a timezone is added. > This > general concept of a point on a time scale with a particular granularity > is > called "time point". It is more general than a "point in time" or "time > instant", but could include that concept if the time scale is continuous. > > I proposed that we adopt this terminology, (but not the ontology) by > referring to a collection of <ruleml:Time> elements as <lrml:TimePoints> > > This also avoids the unfortunate plural "Times", which could be confused > with multiplication or repitition, while retaining generality regarding > the > granularity, if any, of the time scale. > > Example > > <lrml:TimePoints> > <ruleml:Time key="t1"> <ruleml:Data > xsi:type="xs:dateTime">2012-07-21T00:00:00Z</ruleml:Data> </ruleml:Time> > <ruleml:Time key="t2"> <ruleml:Data > xsi:type="xs:date">2012-07-21</ruleml:Data> </ruleml:Time> > </lrml:TimePoints> > > Tara > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
legalruleml-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail:
legalruleml-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
legalruleml-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail:
legalruleml-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Attachment: ex2.1.8-defeasible_v2.lrml Description: Binary data