> I am available Monday
2.00pm CEST to work on it
with you in skype also
facing in case the problem of the evolution of the rule
over time (see the point 2.1).
Tomorrow, Monday, this
time-of-day is not possible for me and other TC members
interested in these important issues, so let me suggest to
move this special 'taskforce' meeting to our usual
time-of-day, 3:30PM Eastern.
Harold
Dear Tara,
thanks for your email and for the hard work.
Please find my answers and comments.
Two files in attachment: Akoma Ntoso and LegalRuleML
about ex2.1.1.
1. Tara:I need to know what model to follow when
representing the sources.
Please find in attachment the example on defeasibility
completed with my suggestions of the metadata/source
elements.
The 2.8isomorphism.002.003.doc doesn't match with the
requirements that I have provided with the original
version.
The block <ruleInfo> is disappeared. This block is
in my view fundamental for providing a complete vision
of the rule properties over time (multiple authors,
multiple time blocks, multiple status in the
defeasibility over time, etc. without duplicate the
rule). I am available Monday 2.00pm CEST to work on it
with you in skype also facing in case the problem of the
evolution of the rule over time (see the point 2.1).
2. Tara:What are the sources?
2.1 WORK, _expression_ and Versioning
I have made some modifications in your example (Akoma
Ntoso xml file) according with the Akoma Ntoso
specifications and also following the original document
history (see
http://www.acma.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_2525)
The document C628:2012 is the second version of a
unique abstract WORK C628 called Telecommunication
Consumer Protection Code (TCP).
We have two versions of the TCP code:
C628:2007 (http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/telcomm/industry_codes/codes/c628_2007.pdf),
C628:2012
(//www.commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/33128/TCP-C628_2012_May2012.pdf)
For simplifying the example I have managed ONLY the WORK
C628:2012.
The next exercise is to manage the two versions of the
norm in Akoma Ntoso and LegalRuleML.
(version in efficacy 18 May 2008 - 30 July 2012)
<<Compliant
means an _expression_ of dissatisfaction made to Supplier
in relation to:
(a) carrying on business as a Carrier;
(b) carrying on business as a Carriage Service
Provider;
(c) supplying a content service using a Listed
Carriage Service ; and/or
(d) supplying a Telecommunications Product.>>
For now I have just added FRBRalias in Akoma for
linking the FRBRthis to the WORK C628
<FRBRalias
value="/au/2007-09-10/C628/eng@2012-05-30"/>
2.2 I have added in Akoma also some more details like:
- lifecycle with the date of enter in force of the
document (for now it is pendingRegistration status
because it is pending in the ACME registration
legislative process)
- uri naming convention of the FRBR identification
metadata
- structure of the original document (title, section,
list, etc.)
This is important for understanding how much is
difficult to match the logic normalization of the norms
with the correspondent original text and also to fix the
date of efficacy of the norms.
2.3 About which URI to use for connecting the text to
the rules we have:
<FRBRthis
value="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/main"/>
<FRBRuri
value="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@"/>
The first is the _expression_ name referred to the current
component of a complex package.
The second is the _expression_ name of the all package.
We have in our example a complex package composed by
three logical parts (main document, annex1, annex2) and
the FRBRuri is the logical name of all the package, the
FRBRthis is the name of the current component of the
package.
<componentInfo>
<componentData id="emain"
href="" name="main" showAs="Main document"/>
<componentData id="eannex1"
href="" name="annex1 " showAs="Role and
Obligations of Communications Compliance"/>
<componentData id="eannex2"
href="" name="annex2" showAs="FLOWCHART"/>
</componentInfo>
We need to use FRBRthis _expression_ for connecting
rules/atoms/etc. with the text:
/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/main.
In particular the
/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/main#sec2.1-list1-itm31-par1
/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/main#sec2.1-list1-itm31-par2-snt1
/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/main#sec2.1-list1-itm31-par2-snt2
/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/main#sec2.1-list1-itm31-par2-snt3
/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/main#sec2.1-list1-itm31-par3
2.b <Rel>is a Complaint</Rel>. Yes it is
better to have:
<Rel iri="/ontology/concepts/complaint"/>is a
Complaint</Rel>
according to the same ontological class of the Akoma
Ntoso file.
Also in my previous examples I suggested this best
practice.
2.c "Another possibility for referencing sources at a
finer level of granularity would be to use the Item URL
plus an xpointer _expression_ to pinpoint the phrases in
the textual provision that are serving as sources for
the <Rel>s"
Personally I don't like to use xpointer _expression_
inside of the XML data annotation that need to be
neutral to any processing.
3. it is ok for me to use <Data> for embedding the
ACE _expression_ of the rule derived by the original text.
Yours,
Monica
Il 03/07/2012 01:59, Tara Athan ha scritto:
There are a few points
on which I need clarification before I can proceed to
add sources to this example.
1. I need to know what model to follow when representing
the sources. The latest revision
(2.8isomorphism.002.003.doc) has a different syntax for
sources than earlier versions. However, this latest
revision has not been approved, or even discussed, by
the TC.
2. What are the sources?
If this is an example taken from text that has already
been marked up, then there should be URIs already
defined for the sources.
I will need to know what the URIs are, and what part of
the text they cover (1 URI for each sentence?)
If the text has not already been marked up, then I think
we should work with a sample markup for this example in
a particular format. It does not matter which format is
used, but in order to reference URIs, there must be a
particular markup in which these URIs are defined.
If the markup is to be in Akoma Ntoso syntax, then I
need to know which URI to use. When I look at examples
of AN, I see URIs for the (FRBR) Work, the _expression_
and the Manifestation. Also, there are two URIs for each
of these, one seems to be particular to a file, which
may be a partial representation, and the other is the
URI for the entire Manifestation (or _expression_ or
Work). Presumably there is also a URL for each Item.
I have attached a preliminary attempt I made at AN
markup when I was working on this example earlier. I
don't know if this markup is correct - suggestions are
welcome. I tried to provide a URI for the concept
"Complaint" as well.
We have talked about indicating sources at a finer level
of granularity than the section or paragraph. I was not
sure if the relation <Rel>is a
Complaint</Rel> would be expected to be linked to
the ontology class provided in the textual provision,
and if so, whether it should be done directly in the
<Atom>, or indirectly through a source statement.
I also used the <span> element to provide an
identifier for the phrase containing the initial
definition of Complaint. This could serve as a source
for the wordy <Rel> in the first two rules,
eliminating the need to reproduce that text.
Another possibility for referencing sources at a finer
level of granularity would be to use the Item URL plus
an xpointer _expression_ to pinpoint the phrases in the
textual provision that are serving as sources for the
<Rel>s. This would be available even if the source
was not marked up at a finer level, but would depend on
a persistent URL being available for the Item.
Once the original text is in a separate markup, then I
can delete the comments where the original text is
given, which is a redundancy.
3. For complete documentation of the lineage from
textual provision to rule, the intermediate step of the
paraphrase is perhaps in need of a more official
representation. This could be attached as a <Data>
string to the Rule as a comment, within metadata. If a
controlled language, such as ACE, is used as an
intermediate step in deriving the rule representation,
then this would provide a way to annotate the rule with
the ACE _expression_.
Tara
On 7/2/2012 9:56 AM, Guido Governatori wrote:
Dear Tara,
the modelling of the defeasibility example is mostly OK
(apart the issue of using OR in the body of a rule which
might correspond to 3 rules for languages without OR,
and the pending issue of key/keyref to be decided in a
forthcoming TC).
It seems to me that we can proceed with the next steep.
Can you extend the example to include metadata block(s)
for the source.
For the sources, in general it is not possible to assume
any specific format. All we need is an URI for the
textual provision.
I include Adrian extension of the example.
All the best
Guido
--
Prof Guido Governatori
Associate Education Director and Principal Researcher
Queensland Research Laboratory
NICTA | PO Box 6020 | St Lucia QLD 4067
T +61 7 33008523 | M +61 (0)400 934 738 | F +61 7 3300
8420
www.nicta.com.au
|
guido.governatori@nicta.com.au
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.
--
===================================
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
====================================
LA RICERCA C’È E SI VEDE:
5 per mille all'Università di Bologna - C.F.: 80007010376
http://www.unibo.it/5permille
Questa informativa è inserita in automatico dal sistema al
fine esclusivo della realizzazione dei fini istituzionali
dell’ente.