[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
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> 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]
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. 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> 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.
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. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]