New idiomatic LegalRuleML formalizations to discuss during the next meet

Dear LegalRuleMLs,

The attached file includes all formalizations we agreed so far plus two new ones: schedule_paragraph_6_3_Statements and schedule_paragraph_6_4_Statements, which we will discuss next time. You can find them at the bottom of the attached file.

There is an important issue that we need to address and then there are two questions:

========================================================================================================

ISSUE #1:

Two times ago we discussed about the atoms that should be put in the consequent of a prescriptive statement rather than its antecedent. The latest example we saw (it was a permission) has been formalized as a constitutive rule so that it does no longer exemplify this issue. However, we have now to formalize an obligation (schedule_paragraph_6_4_PrescriptiveStatement1) in which the very same issue occurs.

In the consequent we have:

<ruleml:then>

<lrml:Obligation>

<ruleml:And>

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>Hold</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var key=":localauthority">localauthority</ruleml:Var>

<ruleml:Var key=":hearing">hearing</ruleml:Var>

</ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>IsAbout</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var keyRef="#hearing"/>

<ruleml:Var keyRef="#hearingRequest"/>

</ruleml:Atom>

Etc.

</ruleml:And>

</lrml:Obligation>

</ruleml:then>

The problem is the following: in SDL we have O(A ^ B)=> O(A) ^ O(B). Thus, in the formula above we would have that it is obligatory for the #hearing to be about the #hearingRequest, which sounds counter-intuitive. Therefore, Guido proposed to move it in the antecedent, but Livio found this solution to be counter-intuitive as well, because a state of affairs that matches the antecedent but the predicate "IsAbout(hearing, hearingRequest)" (the latter being either unknown or false) should trigger the obligation; on the contrary, in the solution proposed by Guido it would not. A third solution could be the one of introducing a special constitutive rule to "define" the consequent.

Other two considerations should be taken into account for the issue above:

We said that idiomatic LegalRuleML is independent from the underlying logic. If so, should we really consider the entailments given by the axioms of SDL in our analysis?

One of our main aims is to attract more people to use the standard. Therefore, we should provide on the web site clear guidelines for how to build the idiomatic LegalRuleML representations. Building the obligation as it is now in the attached file, i.e., with "IsAbout(hearing, hearingRequest)" in the consequent, seems pretty natural to me, and I expect most new users of LegalRuleML to do the same. If we don't like this solution, we have to write clear guidelines to avoid them formalizing in this way.

========================================================================================================

QUESTION #1:

The following: "For the purposes of this paragraph and unless the contrary is proved, the sending of a notice by post is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the notice would be delivered in the ordinary course of post." has been formalized as:

<lrml:ConstitutiveStatement key="schedule_paragraph_6_3_ConstitutiveStatement1">

<ruleml:Rule>

<ruleml:if>

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>EstimatedTimeOfOrdinaryPostDelivery</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var key=":time">time</ruleml:Var>

</ruleml:Atom>

</ruleml:if>

<ruleml:then>

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>IsTimeOf</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var keyRef="#time"/>

<ruleml:Var keyRef="#rhNotice"/>

</ruleml:Atom>

</ruleml:then>

</ruleml:Rule>

</lrml:ConstitutiveStatement>

But some meetings ago you told me I should add this:

<lrml:Context key="ruleInfo2">

<lrml:appliesStrength iri="lmrlmm:defeasible"/>

<lrml:inScopekey ref="#schedule_paragraph_6_3_ConstitutiveStatement1"/>

</lrml:Context>

I don't remember why... is it because the text specifies "unless the contrary is proved"?

Anyway, you also told me that "lmrlmm" is the prefix of the LegalRuleML meta-model. In the core specifications I found:

"xmlns:lmrlmm for http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalruleml/ns/mm/v1.0/". So, should I write this somewhere? Within a Prefix tag maybe?

========================================================================================================

QUESTION #2:

In schedule-paragraph-6-4-b, there is written "the person authorised for the purpose by the local authority of the area in which the offence was committed must notify the procurator fiscal of the request"

=> I don't understand much this norm, not even the English... what is a "person authorised for the purpose"?

=> I formalized this (note that "procuratorFiscal" is a constant, not a variable), I hope you agree with that:

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>Notify</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var key=":personResponsibleOfTheArea">personResponsibleOfTheArea</ruleml:Var>

<ruleml:Ind>procuratorFiscal</ruleml:Ind>

</ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>AuthorizedBy</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var keyRef="#personResponsibleOfTheArea"/>

<ruleml:Var keyRef="#localauthority"/>

</ruleml:Atom>

=> There is written "the period for payment of the fixed penalty must be calculated so that the period beginning with the giving of the notice under this paragraph and ending with the receipt by the person who gave that notice of the decision reached at the hearing is left out of account."

But who must calculate this period? I.e., who is the bearer of this obligation? I put the local authority:

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>Calculate</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var keyRef="#localauthority"/>

<ruleml:Var key=":periodOfPayment">periodOfPayment</ruleml:Var>

</ruleml:Atom>

=> Then, I added a constitutive rule (schedule_paragraph_6_4_ConstitutiveStatement1) defining the period of payment.

Note that I added:

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>HearingDecision</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var keyRef="#hearingDecision"/>

</ruleml:Atom>

which is the "twin" of this predicate, used in a previous formula:

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>HearingRequest</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var keyRef="#hearingRequest"/>

</ruleml:Atom>

========================================================================================================

legalruleml message