RE: [legalruleml] [XML] source example

["Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>]

Hi LegalRuleML Colleagues,

Maybe _variations_ of the example (started by Monica and continued by Tara) could be developed as suggested by Guido here.

In general, there are multiple dimensions, including for defeasible, modal (deontic, authority/source), and temporal knowledge as well as for 'commentary annotations'. A 'dimension-modularized' design (leading to a lattice of the kind illustrated in "Customization of RuleML in Relax NG", Fig. 1., http://www.cs.unb.ca/~boley/papers/RuleMLinRelaxNG.pdf, RuleML@BRF 2011) will allow us to use _branches_ and _combinations_ of the LegalRuleML modules as needed by applications.

On the example level, this could be illustrated by adding, one by one, defeasibility while subtracting features from all other LegalRuleML modules etc., then giving all (interesting) pairwise feature combinations, etc.

Best,
Harold


-----Original Message-----
From: legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Guido Governatori
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 8:37 PM
To: legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [legalruleml] [XML] source example


On 05/05/2012, at 8:54 AM, Tara Athan wrote:

Thanks Tara for the  mapping and starting this discussion.

> As was discussed earlier, the next step is to develop a real example from a natural language statement into to XML. This example should contain defeasible rules, but should not require representation of deontic or temporal aspects. I have some suggestions as to how this may be brought about.
> 1. the deontic and temporal aspects can be "hidden" (for now) in the names of relations and references to sources.

It seems to me that the example is not the best one to illustrate what we have so far.  It contains too many hidden features (references to sources, notion of violations, that it implies that there are obligations/prohibitions in the references) and it does not really illustrate the use of defeasibility.

> 2. confine (for now) our examples to a single authority and timestamp, so that we do not yet tackle cross-references between multiple authorities or across time. The entire knowledgebase could be considered as a contextual statement: As of time YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss some agent of Authority A declares that ( ... ). At this stage we would not address the issue of how to merge knowledgebases from different authorities, or from the same authority but different timestamps.
>
> Example: "Anyone who violates Art. 1 and Art. 5 and Art. 7 and Art. 15 of the ACT 20 shall be punished following the Art. 23 in the Act 30"

To add defeasibility we can consider a minimal extension like "unless there are mitigating circumstances as defined by Art 20 of the ACT"

> can be expressed as
>
> <Rulebase>
> <legalruleml:metadata xsi:type="&legalruleml;rulebasemetadata">
> <Data>
> <legalruleml:authority legalruleml:mode="&legalruleml;inherit" iri="&authorities;A"/>
> <legalruleml:timestamp legalruleml:mode="&legalruleml;inherit">2012-04-25T12:00:00-05:00</legalruleml:timestamp>
> </Data>
> </legalruleml:metadata>
> <Implies material="no"
> capability="&dfs;defeasible"
> closure="universal">
> <if>
> <And>
> <Atom>
> <Rel iri="legalruleml;violates"/>
> <Var>X</Var>
> <Ind iri="&ACT20;art1">
> </Atom>
> <Atom>
...
> </if>
> </then>
> <Atom>
> <Rel iri="legalruleml;shall_be_punished_following"/>
> <Var>X</Var>
> <Ind iri="&ACT30;art23">
> </Atom>
> </then>
> </Implies>
> </Rulebase>
>
> The deontic aspects of the premises are hidden by the references to the articles, which will later be expanded as, perhaps, deontic modal operators applied to descriptions of the actions that are prohibited.

In my 2005 pape [1]r, I propose to use construction to represent violations and same for penalties (though not using Rel), but we can wait for this till we start the discussion on the deontic aspects.

> Temporal aspects of the conclusion are hidden in the relation ("shall be..."), to be expanded later as, perhaps, temporal modal operators applied to the conclusion.
>
The example has an interesting feature. The use of the word "shall". It seems to me that in this the meaning of "shall" is not to introduce a temporal reference "future tense" but to introduce an "obligation".

All the best

Guido

[1] Guido Governatori. Representing business contracts in RuleML. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 14 2-3: 181-216, 2005.
http://espace.uq.edu.au/eserv.php?pid=UQ:9617&dsID=coala.pdf

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legalruleml-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legalruleml-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>


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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legalruleml-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legalruleml-help@lists.oasis-open.org