Indeed you are right we need a triple for Reparation, we have to indicate the type of the link between a (violated) norm and the related penalty. We can put [Reparation] in front of the name of the pair, i.e., [Reparation] rep1: ps1, pen1. The trigger is the violation of a prescriptive statement, not the violation of the head. It is possible to have one and the same obligation for several different reasons (norms), but each norm can have its own penalty. For example, the speed limit can be 30km/h, but this can be for different reasons, for example in a school zone (norm 1) or in a motorway with fog and less than 50m of visibility (norm 2). Speeding in the first case has a penalty of 100 units, and in the second case of 50 units. A prescriptive statement is violated if the antecedent holds but the content of the obligation in the consequent does not hold (and the prescriptive statement is not defeated). All the best Sent from my iPad On 17 Aug 2014, at 11:32, Tara Athan <
taraathan@gmail.com< mailto:
taraathan@gmail.com >> wrote: I see your point - Reparation is not a deontic operator, so it doesn't make sense to write [Reparation]. A different notation is needed. However, a Reparation is not just a pair (of prescriptive statement and penalty), it is a link between them, so it is more like a triple, with subject prescriptive statement, property reparation and object penalty. The [Violation] is implicit. BTW the reparation is not triggered by a Violation of the prescriptive statement (which doesn't make sense), but a Violation of the head of the prescriptive statement. Tara On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Guido Governatori <
Guido.Governatori@nicta.com.au< mailto:
Guido.Governatori@nicta.com.au >> wrote: On 17 Aug 2014, at 5:28 am, Tara Athan <
taraathan@gmail.com< mailto:
taraathan@gmail.com >< mailto:
taraathan@gmail.com < mailto:
taraathan@gmail.com >>> wrote: I finally figured out what is confusing me in this example - it is the appearance of [Violation] instead of [Reparation]. On slide 23, Shouldn't it be rep1: [Reparation] ps1, pen1 rep2: [Reparation] ps1, pen2 I’m not sure about this. The concept of reparation is captured by the pair(s). pen1 is the reparation for the violation of ps1. So it seems to me that {Reparation] is not appropriate here. On the other hand, we have to have a violation of ps1 to trigger the penalty *pen1 or/and pen2), so [Violation] might be more appropriate. However, I think that, given the meaning of the Reparation relation is that a violation of a norm is compensated/repaired by a penalty, the best solution might be to leave our any modality specification. All the best Guido Similarly on slide 26 It is interesting how the alternatives for penalty propagates into (implicit?) alternatives for the reparation - we should mention that somehow. Tara On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:03 AM, monica.palmirani <
monica.palmirani@unibo.it< mailto:
monica.palmirani@unibo.it >< mailto:
monica.palmirani@unibo.it < mailto:
monica.palmirani@unibo.it >>> wrote: Dear LegalRuleML members, please find in attachment the slides for the LegalRuleML tutorial in RuleML2014 Symposium. Best regards, Monica Palmirani -- =================================== 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<tel:%2B39%20051%20277217><tel:%2B39%20051%20277217> Fax +39 051 260782<tel:%2B39%20051%20260782><tel:%2B39%20051%20260782> E-mail
monica.palmirani@unibo.it< mailto:
monica.palmirani@unibo.it >< mailto:
monica.palmirani@unibo.it < mailto:
monica.palmirani@unibo.it >> ==================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ________________________________ 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.