Re: [legalruleml] Version Control Commit by taraathan

[Tara Athan <taraathan@gmail.com>]

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