OASIS LegalRuleML TC

Hi Marcello,
 
Great to hear from you. We must return to previous discussions. FYI – I’m moving to a new post in May, which would be a much more conducive context in which to collaborate, especially around LegalRuleML.
 
On a related note, you might know that LegalRuleML is in dire straights due to a lack of community support. Perhaps Monica has raised this before or not. As we have a reduced TC, it is very problematic to
make further progress and get LegalRuleML out as a standard.
 
Given that you and your group have worked with LegalRuleML and are benefitting by the long efforts of the TC (myself included), you ought to consider contributing in kind by joining OASIS as a member organisation
and joining the TC effort.
 
https://www.oasis-open.org/
 
We really could use your help, which really is help for yourselves. It is an investment. If LegalRuleML is not a standard (or takes even longer to attain the status), it hinders the impact of your work as
well. And it would give us a firm basis for ongoing collaboration within the TC. I’m sure that were our positions reversed, you’d be making the same request (probably earlier).
 
I hope you agree and will take quick action to right this.
 
Best,
Adam
 

------------------

Dr. Adam Zachary Wyner
Lecturer
Department of Computing Science
University of Aberdeen
 


Please note that as of May 2018, I will be taking up a position as Associate Professor of Computer Science and Law at the University of Swansea. My email address will change accordingly.

From: <legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Ceci, Marcello" <marcello.ceci@ucc.ie>
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 3:09 PM
To: "monica.palmirani" <monica.palmirani@unibo.it>, "legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org" <legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules


 

Dear LegalRuleML TC members,
 
I am looking at the LegalRuleML core specification to compare some of its features to the model of constitutive rules that I recently built. I noticed that the
explanation of constitutive rules is very short, and also the examples are very few. In particular, I was not able to understand:
 
1-which type of information can be added as “head” of constitutive rules. I can figure out how to build legal definitions (even though the “counts as” relation
is missing – small issue-, and so is the context – bigger issue, see below) but how am I supposed to build other types of constitutive effects such as the “party to the law” statements (i.e. x is the subject of rule y) or relative necessities (x that doesn’t
have the characteristic y does not count as z in rule k)? These are mainly metarules, so I guess my question is firstly “can we express metarules in LegalRuleML”?
 
2- how to represent the context of constitutive rules. The “jurisdiction” tag within the “context” block is not enough, because sometimes the context of a constitutive
rule does not correspond to an entire jurisdiction: for example, most legal definitions only apply within the law that they appear in (think about Article 4 of most EU directives). How can we specify that “x counts as y in context z” where this z can be not
just a jurisdiction but also a legal document?
 
If there is any material re constitutive rules within LegalRuleML besides the core specification, I would be grateful if you could point me there so I can investigate
these issues myself.

Best,
 
Marcello
 
P.S. the model of constitutive rules I am referring to:
http://www.mirelproject.eu/MIRELws@ICAIL/MIRELwsPubs/Ceci-etal-MIRELwsAtICAIL.pdf
 



The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
Tha Oilthigh Obar Dheathain na charthannas clàraichte ann an Alba, Àir. SC013683.

Dear all, I think that the first step is to consolidate the current work and I am working for collecting more active members inside of the TC. University of Luxembourg is on board and active. Thanks for coming! I am waiting for Guido Governatori and hopefully Adrian Paschke on board again for reconvening a productive TC meeting. The next steps in agenda are: 1. vote the submission of the current work as committee standard (we need major voting); 2. produce more examples, proof-of-concepts, applications (e.g., MIREL, Guido's sample, Adrian's sample, my sample, etc.) and easy documentation; 3. start a new release of LegalRuleML on the basis of the inputs coming from point 2). I hope you can agree on that. Otherwise let me know. All the best, Monica Il 15/02/2018 16:44, Wyner, Adam Zachary ha scritto: Hi Marcello,   Great to hear from you. We must return to previous discussions. FYI – I’m moving to a new post in May, which would be a much more conducive context in which to collaborate, especially around LegalRuleML.   On a related note, you might know that LegalRuleML is in dire straights due to a lack of community support. Perhaps Monica has raised this before or not. As we have a reduced TC, it is very problematic to make further progress and get LegalRuleML out as a standard.   Given that you and your group have worked with LegalRuleML and are benefitting by the long efforts of the TC (myself included), you ought to consider contributing in kind by joining OASIS as a member organisation and joining the TC effort.   https://www.oasis-open.org/   We really could use your help, which really is help for yourselves. It is an investment. If LegalRuleML is not a standard (or takes even longer to attain the status), it hinders the impact of your work as well. And it would give us a firm basis for ongoing collaboration within the TC. I’m sure that were our positions reversed, you’d be making the same request (probably earlier).   I hope you agree and will take quick action to right this.   Best, Adam -- =================================== 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 ====================================

Thanks for the quick reply Adam
 
Congratulations on your new post! I’m really curious to know what that is!
 
And thanks for the suggestion. As a matter of fact, we already did that: we are members of the LegalRuleML TC and I recently resolved myself to commit time and resources to the development of the standard
(I briefly said this to Monica and bystanders during the last LegalDocML TC).

 
My email is in fact an attempt in starting a discussion to understand the limits of the current standard (the strengths, I have a pretty good idea of what they are). I am happy to participate in any discussion
that tries to consolidate the current version of LegalRuleML or to discuss the features that must be added in the next version. I think we should have meetings at least twice a month do bring this forward. I am available for such meetings.
 
Best,
 
Marcello
 


From: Wyner, Adam Zachary [mailto:azwyner@abdn.ac.uk]

Sent: 15 February 2018 15:44
To: Ceci, Marcello <marcello.ceci@ucc.ie>; monica.palmirani <monica.palmirani@unibo.it>; legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules


 
Hi Marcello,
 
Great to hear from you. We must return to previous discussions. FYI – I’m moving to a new post in May, which would be a much more conducive context in which to collaborate, especially around LegalRuleML.
 
On a related note, you might know that LegalRuleML is in dire straights due to a lack of community support. Perhaps Monica has raised this before or not. As we have a reduced TC, it is very problematic to
make further progress and get LegalRuleML out as a standard.
 
Given that you and your group have worked with LegalRuleML and are benefitting by the long efforts of the TC (myself included), you ought to consider contributing in kind by joining OASIS as a member organisation
and joining the TC effort.
 
https://www.oasis-open.org/
 
We really could use your help, which really is help for yourselves. It is an investment. If LegalRuleML is not a standard (or takes even longer to attain the status), it hinders the impact of your work as
well. And it would give us a firm basis for ongoing collaboration within the TC. I’m sure that were our positions reversed, you’d be making the same request (probably earlier).
 
I hope you agree and will take quick action to right this.
 
Best,
Adam
 

------------------

Dr. Adam Zachary Wyner
Lecturer
Department of Computing Science
University of Aberdeen
 


Please note that as of May 2018, I will be taking up a position as Associate Professor of Computer Science and Law at the University of Swansea. My email address will change accordingly.

From: < legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org > on behalf of "Ceci, Marcello" < marcello.ceci@ucc.ie >
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 3:09 PM
To: "monica.palmirani" < monica.palmirani@unibo.it >, " legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org " < legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org >
Subject: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules


 

Dear LegalRuleML TC members,
 
I am looking at the LegalRuleML core specification to compare some of its features to the model of constitutive rules that I recently built. I noticed that the
explanation of constitutive rules is very short, and also the examples are very few. In particular, I was not able to understand:
 
1-which type of information can be added as “head” of constitutive rules. I can figure out how to build legal definitions (even though the “counts as” relation
is missing – small issue-, and so is the context – bigger issue, see below) but how am I supposed to build other types of constitutive effects such as the “party to the law” statements (i.e. x is the subject of rule y) or relative necessities (x that doesn’t
have the characteristic y does not count as z in rule k)? These are mainly metarules, so I guess my question is firstly “can we express metarules in LegalRuleML”?
 
2- how to represent the context of constitutive rules. The “jurisdiction” tag within the “context” block is not enough, because sometimes the context of a constitutive
rule does not correspond to an entire jurisdiction: for example, most legal definitions only apply within the law that they appear in (think about Article 4 of most EU directives). How can we specify that “x counts as y in context z” where this z can be not
just a jurisdiction but also a legal document?
 
If there is any material re constitutive rules within LegalRuleML besides the core specification, I would be grateful if you could point me there so I can investigate
these issues myself.

Best,
 
Marcello
 
P.S. the model of constitutive rules I am referring to:
http://www.mirelproject.eu/MIRELws@ICAIL/MIRELwsPubs/Ceci-etal-MIRELwsAtICAIL.pdf
 


The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
Tha Oilthigh Obar Dheathain na charthannas clàraichte ann an Alba, Àir. SC013683.

Hi Marcello,
 
Ah, outstanding! I did not know this, so I retract my earlier point
?
 
I really want LegalRuleML to move ahead, and it has been stalled for many months (I understand why, but still).
 
Let’s speak soon.
 
Regards,
Adam
 

------------------

Dr. Adam Zachary Wyner
Lecturer
Department of Computing Science
University of Aberdeen
 


Please note that as of May 2018, I will be taking up a position as Associate Professor of Computer Science and Law at the University of Swansea. My email address will change accordingly.

From: "Ceci, Marcello" <marcello.ceci@ucc.ie>
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM
To: "Wyner, Adam Zachary" <azwyner@abdn.ac.uk>, "monica.palmirani" <monica.palmirani@unibo.it>, "legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org" <legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules


 

Thanks for the quick reply Adam
 
Congratulations on your new post! I’m really curious to know what that is!
 
And thanks for the suggestion. As a matter of fact, we already did that: we are members of the LegalRuleML TC and I recently resolved myself to commit time and resources to the development of the standard
(I briefly said this to Monica and bystanders during the last LegalDocML TC).

 
My email is in fact an attempt in starting a discussion to understand the limits of the current standard (the strengths, I have a pretty good idea of what they are). I am happy to participate in any discussion
that tries to consolidate the current version of LegalRuleML or to discuss the features that must be added in the next version. I think we should have meetings at least twice a month do bring this forward. I am available for such meetings.
 
Best,
 
Marcello
 


From: Wyner, Adam Zachary [mailto:azwyner@abdn.ac.uk]

Sent: 15 February 2018 15:44
To: Ceci, Marcello <marcello.ceci@ucc.ie>; monica.palmirani <monica.palmirani@unibo.it>; legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules


 
Hi Marcello,
 
Great to hear from you. We must return to previous discussions. FYI – I’m moving to a new post in May, which would be a much more conducive context in which to collaborate, especially around LegalRuleML.
 
On a related note, you might know that LegalRuleML is in dire straights due to a lack of community support. Perhaps Monica has raised this before or not. As we have a reduced TC, it is very problematic to
make further progress and get LegalRuleML out as a standard.
 
Given that you and your group have worked with LegalRuleML and are benefitting by the long efforts of the TC (myself included), you ought to consider contributing in kind by joining OASIS as a member organisation
and joining the TC effort.
 
https://www.oasis-open.org/
 
We really could use your help, which really is help for yourselves. It is an investment. If LegalRuleML is not a standard (or takes even longer to attain the status), it hinders the impact of your work as
well. And it would give us a firm basis for ongoing collaboration within the TC. I’m sure that were our positions reversed, you’d be making the same request (probably earlier).
 
I hope you agree and will take quick action to right this.
 
Best,
Adam
 

------------------

Dr. Adam Zachary Wyner
Lecturer
Department of Computing Science
University of Aberdeen
 


Please note that as of May 2018, I will be taking up a position as Associate Professor of Computer Science and Law at the University of Swansea. My email address will change accordingly.

From: < legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org > on behalf of "Ceci, Marcello" < marcello.ceci@ucc.ie >
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 3:09 PM
To: "monica.palmirani" < monica.palmirani@unibo.it >, " legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org " < legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org >
Subject: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules


 

Dear LegalRuleML TC members,
 
I am looking at the LegalRuleML core specification to compare some of its features to the model of constitutive rules that I recently built. I noticed that the
explanation of constitutive rules is very short, and also the examples are very few. In particular, I was not able to understand:
 
1-which type of information can be added as “head” of constitutive rules. I can figure out how to build legal definitions (even though the “counts as” relation
is missing – small issue-, and so is the context – bigger issue, see below) but how am I supposed to build other types of constitutive effects such as the “party to the law” statements (i.e. x is the subject of rule y) or relative necessities (x that doesn’t
have the characteristic y does not count as z in rule k)? These are mainly metarules, so I guess my question is firstly “can we express metarules in LegalRuleML”?
 
2- how to represent the context of constitutive rules. The “jurisdiction” tag within the “context” block is not enough, because sometimes the context of a constitutive
rule does not correspond to an entire jurisdiction: for example, most legal definitions only apply within the law that they appear in (think about Article 4 of most EU directives). How can we specify that “x counts as y in context z” where this z can be not
just a jurisdiction but also a legal document?
 
If there is any material re constitutive rules within LegalRuleML besides the core specification, I would be grateful if you could point me there so I can investigate
these issues myself.

Best,
 
Marcello
 
P.S. the model of constitutive rules I am referring to:
http://www.mirelproject.eu/MIRELws@ICAIL/MIRELwsPubs/Ceci-etal-MIRELwsAtICAIL.pdf
 


The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
Tha Oilthigh Obar Dheathain na charthannas clàraichte ann an Alba, Àir. SC013683.




The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
Tha Oilthigh Obar Dheathain na charthannas clàraichte ann an Alba, Àir. SC013683.

Dear all, we can convene a new TC meeting on Tuesday 20 February in order to permit to UNILUX and Marcello to get the voting right. Guido Governatori and Adrian Paschke are invited to join to the meeting as external expert, in meantime that we are going to resolve the problem of the membership and so the consequential problem of quorum. Best regards, Monica Il 15/02/2018 16:55, Wyner, Adam Zachary ha scritto: Hi Marcello,   Ah, outstanding! I did not know this, so I retract my earlier point ?   I really want LegalRuleML to move ahead, and it has been stalled for many months (I understand why, but still).   Let’s speak soon.   Regards, Adam   ------------------ Dr. Adam Zachary Wyner Lecturer Department of Computing Science University of Aberdeen   Please note that as of May 2018, I will be taking up a position as Associate Professor of Computer Science and Law at the University of Swansea. My email address will change accordingly. From: Ceci, Marcello <marcello.ceci@ucc.ie> Date: Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM To: Wyner, Adam Zachary <azwyner@abdn.ac.uk> , monica.palmirani <monica.palmirani@unibo.it> , legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org <legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: RE: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules   Thanks for the quick reply Adam   Congratulations on your new post! I’m really curious to know what that is!   And thanks for the suggestion. As a matter of fact, we already did that: we are members of the LegalRuleML TC and I recently resolved myself to commit time and resources to the development of the standard (I briefly said this to Monica and bystanders during the last LegalDocML TC).   My email is in fact an attempt in starting a discussion to understand the limits of the current standard (the strengths, I have a pretty good idea of what they are). I am happy to participate in any discussion that tries to consolidate the current version of LegalRuleML or to discuss the features that must be added in the next version. I think we should have meetings at least twice a month do bring this forward. I am available for such meetings.   Best,   Marcello   From: Wyner, Adam Zachary [ mailto:azwyner@abdn.ac.uk ] Sent: 15 February 2018 15:44 To: Ceci, Marcello <marcello.ceci@ucc.ie> ; monica.palmirani <monica.palmirani@unibo.it> ; legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules   Hi Marcello,   Great to hear from you. We must return to previous discussions. FYI – I’m moving to a new post in May, which would be a much more conducive context in which to collaborate, especially around LegalRuleML.   On a related note, you might know that LegalRuleML is in dire straights due to a lack of community support. Perhaps Monica has raised this before or not. As we have a reduced TC, it is very problematic to make further progress and get LegalRuleML out as a standard.   Given that you and your group have worked with LegalRuleML and are benefitting by the long efforts of the TC (myself included), you ought to consider contributing in kind by joining OASIS as a member organisation and joining the TC effort.   https://www.oasis-open.org/   We really could use your help, which really is help for yourselves. It is an investment. If LegalRuleML is not a standard (or takes even longer to attain the status), it hinders the impact of your work as well. And it would give us a firm basis for ongoing collaboration within the TC. I’m sure that were our positions reversed, you’d be making the same request (probably earlier).   I hope you agree and will take quick action to right this.   Best, Adam   ------------------ Dr. Adam Zachary Wyner Lecturer Department of Computing Science University of Aberdeen   Please note that as of May 2018, I will be taking up a position as Associate Professor of Computer Science and Law at the University of Swansea. My email address will change accordingly. From: < legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org > on behalf of Ceci, Marcello < marcello.ceci@ucc.ie > Date: Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 3:09 PM To: monica.palmirani < monica.palmirani@unibo.it >, legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org < legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules   Dear LegalRuleML TC members,   I am looking at the LegalRuleML core specification to compare some of its features to the model of constitutive rules that I recently built. I noticed that the explanation of constitutive rules is very short, and also the examples are very few. In particular, I was not able to understand:   1-which type of information can be added as “head” of constitutive rules. I can figure out how to build legal definitions (even though the “counts as” relation is missing – small issue-, and so is the context – bigger issue, see below) but how am I supposed to build other types of constitutive effects such as the “party to the law” statements (i.e. x is the subject of rule y) or relative necessities (x that doesn’t have the characteristic y does not count as z in rule k)? These are mainly metarules, so I guess my question is firstly “can we express metarules in LegalRuleML”?   2- how to represent the context of constitutive rules. The “jurisdiction” tag within the “context” block is not enough, because sometimes the context of a constitutive rule does not correspond to an entire jurisdiction: for example, most legal definitions only apply within the law that they appear in (think about Article 4 of most EU directives). How can we specify that “x counts as y in context z” where this z can be not just a jurisdiction but also a legal document?   If there is any material re constitutive rules within LegalRuleML besides the core specification, I would be grateful if you could point me there so I can investigate these issues myself. Best,   Marcello   P.S. the model of constitutive rules I am referring to: http://www.mirelproject.eu/MIRELws@ICAIL/MIRELwsPubs/Ceci-etal-MIRELwsAtICAIL.pdf   The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683. Tha Oilthigh Obar Dheathain na charthannas clàraichte ann an Alba, Àir. SC013683. The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683. Tha Oilthigh Obar Dheathain na charthannas clàraichte ann an Alba, Àir. SC013683. -- =================================== 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 ====================================

Hello, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to participate in this exciting topic. On Tuesday 20 I will be traveling back to Luxembourg from work + vacation, so depending on the time I might be able to participate. Otherwise, I will certainly be available from Wed 21 on. Thank you, and regards. Il 15/02/18 17:07, monica.palmirani ha scritto: Dear all, we can convene a new TC meeting on Tuesday 20 February in order to permit to UNILUX and Marcello to get the voting right. Guido Governatori and Adrian Paschke are invited to join to the meeting as external expert, in meantime that we are going to resolve the problem of the membership and so the consequential problem of quorum. Best regards, Monica Il 15/02/2018 16:55, Wyner, Adam Zachary ha scritto: Hi Marcello, Ah, outstanding! I did not know this, so I retract my earlier point ? I really want LegalRuleML to move ahead, and it has been stalled for many months (I understand why, but still). Let’s speak soon. Regards, Adam ------------------ Dr. Adam Zachary Wyner Lecturer Department of Computing Science University of Aberdeen Please note that as of May 2018, I will be taking up a position as Associate Professor of Computer Science and Law at the University of Swansea. My email address will change accordingly. *From: *"Ceci, Marcello" <marcello.ceci@ucc.ie> *Date: *Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM *To: *"Wyner, Adam Zachary" <azwyner@abdn.ac.uk>, "monica.palmirani" <monica.palmirani@unibo.it>, "legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org" <legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org> *Subject: *RE: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules Thanks for the quick reply Adam Congratulations on your new post! I’m really curious to know what that is! And thanks for the suggestion. As a matter of fact, we already did that: we are members of the LegalRuleML TC and I recently resolved myself to commit time and resources to the development of the standard (I briefly said this to Monica and bystanders during the last LegalDocML TC). My email is in fact an attempt in starting a discussion to understand the limits of the current standard (the strengths, I have a pretty good idea of what they are). I am happy to participate in any discussion that tries to consolidate the current version of LegalRuleML or to discuss the features that must be added in the next version. I think we should have meetings at least twice a month do bring this forward. I am available for such meetings. Best, Marcello *From:*Wyner, Adam Zachary [ mailto:azwyner@abdn.ac.uk ] *Sent:* 15 February 2018 15:44 *To:* Ceci, Marcello <marcello.ceci@ucc.ie>; monica.palmirani <monica.palmirani@unibo.it>; legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org *Subject:* Re: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules Hi Marcello, Great to hear from you. We must return to previous discussions. FYI – I’m moving to a new post in May, which would be a much more conducive context in which to collaborate, especially around LegalRuleML. On a related note, you might know that LegalRuleML is in dire straights due to a lack of community support. Perhaps Monica has raised this before or not. As we have a reduced TC, it is very problematic to make further progress and get LegalRuleML out as a standard. Given that you and your group have worked with LegalRuleML and are benefitting by the long efforts of the TC (myself included), you ought to consider contributing in kind by joining OASIS as a member organisation and joining the TC effort. https://www.oasis-open.org/ We really could use your help, which really is help for yourselves. It is an investment. If LegalRuleML is not a standard (or takes even longer to attain the status), it hinders the impact of your work as well. And it would give us a firm basis for ongoing collaboration within the TC. I’m sure that were our positions reversed, you’d be making the same request (probably earlier). I hope you agree and will take quick action to right this. Best, Adam ------------------ Dr. Adam Zachary Wyner Lecturer Department of Computing Science University of Aberdeen Please note that as of May 2018, I will be taking up a position as Associate Professor of Computer Science and Law at the University of Swansea. My email address will change accordingly. *From: *<legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org < mailto:legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org >> on behalf of "Ceci, Marcello" <marcello.ceci@ucc.ie < mailto:marcello.ceci@ucc.ie >> *Date: *Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 3:09 PM *To: *"monica.palmirani" <monica.palmirani@unibo.it < mailto:monica.palmirani@unibo.it >>, "legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org < mailto:legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org >" <legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org < mailto:legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org >> *Subject: *[legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules Dear LegalRuleML TC members, I am looking at the LegalRuleML core specification to compare some of its features to the model of constitutive rules that I recently built. I noticed that the explanation of constitutive rules is very short, and also the examples are very few. In particular, I was not able to understand: 1-which type of information can be added as “head” of constitutive rules. I can figure out how to build legal definitions (even though the “counts as” relation is missing – small issue-, and so is the context – bigger issue, see below) but how am I supposed to build other types of constitutive effects such as the “party to the law” statements (i.e. x is the subject of rule y) or relative necessities (x that doesn’t have the characteristic y does not count as z in rule k)? These are mainly metarules, so I guess my question is firstly “can we express metarules in LegalRuleML”? 2- how to represent the context of constitutive rules. The “jurisdiction” tag within the “context” block is not enough, because sometimes the context of a constitutive rule does not correspond to an entire jurisdiction: for example, most legal definitions only apply within the law that they appear in (think about Article 4 of most EU directives). How can we specify that “x counts as y in context z” where this z can be not just a jurisdiction but also a legal document? If there is any material re constitutive rules within LegalRuleML besides the core specification, I would be grateful if you could point me there so I can investigate these issues myself. Best, Marcello P.S. the model of constitutive rules I am referring to: http://www.mirelproject.eu/MIRELws@ICAIL/MIRELwsPubs/Ceci-etal-MIRELwsAtICAIL.pdf The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683. Tha Oilthigh Obar Dheathain na charthannas clàraichte ann an Alba, Àir. SC013683. The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683. Tha Oilthigh Obar Dheathain na charthannas clàraichte ann an Alba, Àir. SC013683. -- =================================== 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-mailmonica.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 -- Cesare Bartolini SnT - Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust Université du Luxembourg JFK Building 29, Avenue J.F. Kennedy L-1855 Luxembourg Tel: (+352) 46 66 44 5897 Fax: (+352) 46 66 44 35897 Email: cesare.bartolini@uni.lu

Hello to everyone!
 
Cesare and I are the main representives of Univ. of Luxembourg. We’re working with LegalRuleML on our project DAPRECO.
 
Since we’re new, I wonder if you can have some patience with us in the beginning, to give us the time to learn how the activity is carried out within the TC.
 
Thanks
Livio

P.S. Cesare, did you receive these emails? Are you in the list
legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org ?

 
 
 


From: legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Wyner, Adam Zachary
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:56 PM
To: Ceci, Marcello <marcello.ceci@ucc.ie>; monica.palmirani <monica.palmirani@unibo.it>; legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules


 
Hi Marcello,
 
Ah, outstanding! I did not know this, so I retract my earlier point
?
 
I really want LegalRuleML to move ahead, and it has been stalled for many months (I understand why, but still).
 
Let’s speak soon.
 
Regards,
Adam
 

------------------

Dr. Adam Zachary Wyner
Lecturer
Department of Computing Science
University of Aberdeen
 


Please note that as of May 2018, I will be taking up a position as Associate Professor of Computer Science and Law at the University of Swansea. My email address will change accordingly.

From: "Ceci, Marcello" < marcello.ceci@ucc.ie >
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM
To: "Wyner, Adam Zachary" < azwyner@abdn.ac.uk >, "monica.palmirani" < monica.palmirani@unibo.it >, " legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org "
< legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org >
Subject: RE: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules


 

Thanks for the quick reply Adam
 
Congratulations on your new post! I’m really curious to know what that is!
 
And thanks for the suggestion. As a matter of fact, we already did that: we are members of the LegalRuleML TC and I recently resolved myself to commit time and resources to the development of the standard
(I briefly said this to Monica and bystanders during the last LegalDocML TC).

 
My email is in fact an attempt in starting a discussion to understand the limits of the current standard (the strengths, I have a pretty good idea of what they are). I am happy to participate in any discussion
that tries to consolidate the current version of LegalRuleML or to discuss the features that must be added in the next version. I think we should have meetings at least twice a month do bring this forward. I am available for such meetings.
 
Best,
 
Marcello
 


From: Wyner, Adam Zachary [ mailto:azwyner@abdn.ac.uk ]

Sent: 15 February 2018 15:44
To: Ceci, Marcello < marcello.ceci@ucc.ie >; monica.palmirani < monica.palmirani@unibo.it >;
legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules


 
Hi Marcello,
 
Great to hear from you. We must return to previous discussions. FYI – I’m moving to a new post in May, which would be a much more conducive context in which to collaborate, especially around LegalRuleML.
 
On a related note, you might know that LegalRuleML is in dire straights due to a lack of community support. Perhaps Monica has raised this before or not. As we have a reduced TC, it is very problematic to
make further progress and get LegalRuleML out as a standard.
 
Given that you and your group have worked with LegalRuleML and are benefitting by the long efforts of the TC (myself included), you ought to consider contributing in kind by joining OASIS as a member organisation
and joining the TC effort.
 
https://www.oasis-open.org/
 
We really could use your help, which really is help for yourselves. It is an investment. If LegalRuleML is not a standard (or takes even longer to attain the status), it hinders the impact of your work as
well. And it would give us a firm basis for ongoing collaboration within the TC. I’m sure that were our positions reversed, you’d be making the same request (probably earlier).
 
I hope you agree and will take quick action to right this.
 
Best,
Adam
 

------------------

Dr. Adam Zachary Wyner
Lecturer
Department of Computing Science
University of Aberdeen
 


Please note that as of May 2018, I will be taking up a position as Associate Professor of Computer Science and Law at the University of Swansea. My email address will change accordingly.

From: < legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org > on behalf of "Ceci, Marcello" < marcello.ceci@ucc.ie >
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 3:09 PM
To: "monica.palmirani" < monica.palmirani@unibo.it >, " legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org " < legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org >
Subject: [legalruleml] Constitutive rules and metarules


 

Dear LegalRuleML TC members,
 
I am looking at the LegalRuleML core specification to compare some of its features to the model of constitutive rules that I recently built. I noticed that the
explanation of constitutive rules is very short, and also the examples are very few. In particular, I was not able to understand:
 
1-which type of information can be added as “head” of constitutive rules. I can figure out how to build legal definitions (even though the “counts as” relation
is missing – small issue-, and so is the context – bigger issue, see below) but how am I supposed to build other types of constitutive effects such as the “party to the law” statements (i.e. x is the subject of rule y) or relative necessities (x that doesn’t
have the characteristic y does not count as z in rule k)? These are mainly metarules, so I guess my question is firstly “can we express metarules in LegalRuleML”?
 
2- how to represent the context of constitutive rules. The “jurisdiction” tag within the “context” block is not enough, because sometimes the context of a constitutive
rule does not correspond to an entire jurisdiction: for example, most legal definitions only apply within the law that they appear in (think about Article 4 of most EU directives). How can we specify that “x counts as y in context z” where this z can be not
just a jurisdiction but also a legal document?
 
If there is any material re constitutive rules within LegalRuleML besides the core specification, I would be grateful if you could point me there so I can investigate
these issues myself.

Best,
 
Marcello
 
P.S. the model of constitutive rules I am referring to:
http://www.mirelproject.eu/MIRELws@ICAIL/MIRELwsPubs/Ceci-etal-MIRELwsAtICAIL.pdf
 


The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
Tha Oilthigh Obar Dheathain na charthannas clàraichte ann an Alba, Àir. SC013683.



The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
Tha Oilthigh Obar Dheathain na charthannas clàraichte ann an Alba, Àir. SC013683.