Re: Defeasibility example

[monica.palmirani <monica.palmirani@unibo.it>]

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.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<akomaNtoso xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.akomantoso.org/2.0 ./akomantoso20.xsd" xmlns="http://www.akomantoso.org/2.0";>
	<act>
		<meta>
			<identification source="#palmirani">
				<FRBRWork>
					<FRBRthis value="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/main"/>
					<FRBRuri value="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/"/>
					<FRBRdate date="2012-05-30" name="Creation"/>
					<FRBRauthor href="#cal" as="#author"/>
					<componentInfo>
						<componentData id="wmain" href="#emain" name="main" showAs="Main document"/>
						<componentData id="wannex1" href="#eannex1" name="annex1 " showAs="Role and Obligations of Communications Compliance"/>
						<componentData id="wannex2" href="#eannex2" name="annex2" showAs="FLOWCHART"/>
					</componentInfo>
					<FRBRcountry value="au"/>
				</FRBRWork>
				<FRBRExpression>
					<FRBRthis value="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/main"/>
					<FRBRuri value="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@"/>
					<FRBRalias value="/au/2007-09-10/C628/eng@2012-05-30"/>
					<FRBRdate date="2012-05-30" name="Expression"/>
					<FRBRauthor href="#cal" as="#author"/>
					<componentInfo>
						<componentData id="emain" href="#mmain" name="main" showAs="Main document"/>
						<componentData id="eannex1" href="#mannex1" name="annex1 " showAs="Role and Obligations of Communications Compliance"/>
						<componentData id="eannex2" href="#mannex2" name="annex2" showAs="FLOWCHART"/>
					</componentInfo>
					<FRBRlanguage language="eng"/>
				</FRBRExpression>
				<FRBRManifestation>
					<FRBRthis value="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/main.xml"/>
					<FRBRuri value="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@.akn"/>
					<FRBRdate date="2012-06-29" name="XML-formalization"/>
					<FRBRauthor href="#athan" as="editor"/>
					<FRBRauthor href="#palmirani" as="editor"/>
					<componentInfo>
						<componentData id="mmain" href="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/main.xml" name="main" showAs="Main document"/>
						<componentData id="mannex1" href="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/annex1.xml" name="annex1 " showAs="Role and Obligations of Communications Compliance"/>
						<componentData id="mannex2" href="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/annex2.xml" name="annex2" showAs="FLOWCHART"/>
					</componentInfo>
					<FRBRformat value="xml"/>
				</FRBRManifestation>
			</identification>
			<lifecycle source="#palmirani">
				<eventRef id="e1" date="2012-05-30" source="#ro1" refersTo="#pendingRegistration"/>
				<!-- date of the ACME registration that transform this document in LAW, before this event, the current document is just a simple doc not an act, without any legal effect. See the link http://www.commsalliance.com.au/?a=2912-->
			</lifecycle>
			<references source="#athan">
				<original id="ro1" href="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/main" showAs="TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER PROTECTIONS CODE"/>
				<hasAttachment id="annex1" href="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/annex1" showAs="Role and Obligations of Communications Compliance"/>
				<hasAttachment id="annex2" href="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/annex2" showAs="FLOWCHART"/>
				<TLCPerson id="athan" href="/ontology/persons/akn/athan" showAs="Athan"/>
				<TLCPerson id="palmirani" href="/ontology/persons/akn/athan" showAs="palmirani"/>
				<TLCRole id="editor" href="/ontology/roles/editor" showAs="Editor"/>
				<TLCRole id="author" href="/ontology/roles/author" showAs="Author"/>
				<TLCConcept id="complaint" href="/ontology/concepts/complaint" showAs="Complaint"/>
				<TLCProcess id="pendingRegistration" href="/ontology/process/pendingRegistration" showAs="Pending Registration"/>
				<TLCConcept id="industrialCode" href="ontology/concepts/industrialCode" showAs="Industrial Code"/>
				<TLCOrganization id="cal" href="/ontology/organizations/communicationsAlliance" showAs="Communications Alliance Ltd"/>
			</references>
		</meta>
		<preface>
			<p>
				<docType refersTo="#industryCode">INDUSTRY CODE</docType>
			</p>
			<p>
				<docTitle>TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER PROTECTIONS CODE</docTitle>
			</p>
			<p>
				<docNumber>C628:2012</docNumber>
			</p>
			<p>
				<docDate date="2012-05-30">MAY 2012</docDate>
			</p>
		</preface>
		<preamble>
			<container id="cnt1" name="content">
				<block name="cnt1-blc1" class="title">INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT</block>
				<p>This Communications Alliance Telecommunications Consumer Protections (TCP) Code is a code of conduct designed to ensure good service and fair outcomes for all Consumers of Telecommunications Products in Australia.
All Carriage Service Providers who supply Telecommunications Products to Customers in Australia are required to observe and comply with the Code.</p>
				<p>The Code is registered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which has appropriate powers of enforcement. Compliance with the Code is monitored by Communications Compliance (CC).</p>
			</container>
		</preamble>
		<body>
			<title id="tit1">
				<num> 2</num>
				<heading>DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION</heading>
				<section id="sec2.1">
					<num>2.1</num>
					<heading>Definitions</heading>
					<content>
						<blockList id="sec2.1-list1">
							<listIntroduction>For the purposes of this Code: <omissis>items 1- 30 are omitted</omissis>
							</listIntroduction>
							<item id="sec2.1-list1-itm31">
								<heading>Complaint</heading>
								<p id="sec2.1-list1-itm31-par1">
									<def refersTo="#complaint" class="definition">Complaint</def> means  <span id="defn-complaint">an expression of dissatisfaction made to a Supplier in relation to its Telecommunications Products or the complaints handling process itself, where a response or Resolution is explicitly or implicitly expected by the Consumer</span>.</p>
								<p id="sec2.1-list1-itm31-par2">
									<span id="sec2.1-list1-itm31-par2-snt1">An initial call to a provider to request a service or information or to request support is not necessarily a Complaint.</span>
									<span id="sec2.1-list1-itm31-par2-snt2">An initial call to report a fault or service difficulty is not a Complaint.</span>
									<span id="sec2.1-list1-itm31-par2-snt3">However, if a Customer advises that they want this initial call treated as a Complaint, the Supplier will also treat this initial call as a Complaint.</span>
								</p>
								<p id="sec2.1-list1-itm31-par3">If a Supplier is uncertain, a Supplier must ask a Customer if they wish to make a Complaint and must rely on the Customerâ??s response.</p>
							</item>
						</blockList>
					</content>
				</section>
			</title>
		</body>
	</act>
</akomaNtoso>

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE RuleML [
	<!ENTITY ruleml "http://ruleml.org/";>
	<!ENTITY dfs "http://example.org/vocabulary/defeasible#";>
]>
<RuleML xmlns="&ruleml;spec" xmlns:legalruleml="http://legalruleml.example.org";>
	<legalruleml:metadata>
		<references id="referenceBlock1">
			<reference id="ID1" iri="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/main#sec2.1-list1-itm31-par1" refType="/ontology/legalText"/>
			<reference id="ID2" iri="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/main#sec2.1-list1-itm31-par2-snt1" refType="/ontology/legalText"/>
			<reference id="ID3" iri="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/main#sec2.1-list1-itm31-par2-snt2" refType="/ontology/legalText"/>
			<reference id="ID4" iri="/au/2012-05-30/C628:2012/eng@/main#sec2.1-list1-itm31-par2-snt3" refType="/ontology/legalText"/>
			<reference id="aut1" iri="/ontology/persons/akn/athan"/>
			<reference id="aut2" iri="/ontology/persons/akn/palmirani"/>
			<reference id="au" iri="/ontology/countries/akn/australia"/>
			<reference id="efficacy" iri="/ontology/times/akn/efficacy"/>
			<reference id="efficacy" iri="/ontology/times/akn/applicability"/>
		</references>
		<sovereignty idref="#au"/>
		<!-- sovereignty is the country/region/logical area where the norms are valid. -->
		<!-- jurisdiction is the country where the addressed of the norm is judged. -->
		<legalEvents>
			<event id="e1" value="2012-05-30T01:01:00.0Z"/>
			<event id="e2" value="2012-07-30T01:01:00.0Z"/>
		</legalEvents>
		<timesInfo>
			<times id="t1">
				<time start="#e1" refType="#efficacy"/>
				<time start="#e2" refType="#applicability"/>
			</times>
		</timesInfo>
		<ruleInfo id="ruleInfo1" applysTo="#rule_1a #rule_1b">
			<sources id="sourceBlock1">
				<source applysTo="#rule_1a_atom2" idref="#ID1"/>
				<source applysTo="#rule_1b_atom1" idref="#ID1"/>
			</sources>
			<strenght iri="&dfs;defeasible"/>
			<legalTimes idRef="#t1"/>
			<author idref="#aut1"/>
			<creationDateTime idref="e1"/>
		</ruleInfo>
		<ruleInfo id="ruleInfo2" applysTo="#rule_2">
			<sources id="sourceBlock2">
				<source applysTo="#rule_2_atom1" idref="#ID2"/>
			</sources>
			<strenght iri="&dfs;defeater"/>
			<legalTimes idRef="#t1"/>
			<author idref="#aut1"/>
			<creationDateTime idref="e1"/>
		</ruleInfo>
		<ruleInfo id="ruleInfo3" applysTo="#rule_3">
			<sources id="sourceBlock3">
				<source applysTo="#rule_3_atom1" idref="#ID3"/>
			</sources>
			<strenght iri="&dfs;defeasible"/>
			<legalTimes idRef="#t1"/>
			<author idref="#aut2"/>
			<creationDateTime idref="e1"/>
		</ruleInfo>
		<ruleInfo id="ruleInfo4" applysTo="#rule_4">
			<sources id="sourceBlock4">
				<source applysTo="#rule_4_atom1" idref="#ID4"/>
				<source applysTo="#rule_4_atom2" idref="#ID4"/>
			</sources>
			<strenght iri="&dfs;defeater"/>
			<legalTimes idRef="#t1"/>
			<author idref="#aut2"/>
			<creationDateTime idref="e1"/>
		</ruleInfo>
	</legalruleml:metadata>
	<Assert mapClosure="universal" mapMaterial="no">
		<!-- Sentence 1 -->
		<!--Original:
    Complaint means an expression of dissatisfaction made to a Supplier in relation 
    to its Telecommunications Products or the complaints handling process itself, 
    where a response or Resolution is explicitly or implicitly expected by the Consumer.  
    -->
		<!-- Paraphrase:
    Rule 1a.
    If X is a Complaint, then X is an expression of dissatisfaction made to a 
    Supplier in relation to its Telecommunications Products or the complaints 
    handling process itself, where a response or Resolution is explicitly or 
    implicitly expected by the Consumer.
    Rule 1b.
    If X is an expression of dissatisfaction made to a Supplier in relation to 
    its Telecommunications Products or the complaints handling process itself, 
    where a response or Resolution is explicitly or implicitly expected by the Consumer, 
    then X is a Complaint.  
    -->
		<!-- Issues:
    To be stated as defeasible rules, we must have the representation
    as two defeasible rules, because one rule may be defeated while the other holds.
    Isomorphism is not lost because there is still a fixed set of two rules that are affected
    by changes in the text of the first sentence.
    -->
		<Rulebase>
			<!-- defines the evaluation semantics to be used for this rulebase -->
			<evaluation>
				<!-- Defeasible semantic profile define in the metamodel -->
				<Profile type="ruleml:Defeasible" direction="backward" style="reasoning">
     </Profile>
			</evaluation>
			<!-- defines the qualifying properties such the conflict resolution strategy, here by using overrides superiority relation -->
			<qualification>
				<legalruleml:Overrides>
					<!-- Issues: The individuals referenced here are non-ground rules with
             different free variables. The rules are implicitly determined to be
             in conflict if the logical closure of their heads is inconsistent.-->
					<Rule legalruleml:keyref="#rule_2"/>
					<Rule legalruleml:keyref="#rule_1b"/>
				</legalruleml:Overrides>
			</qualification>
			<Rule legalruleml:strength="&dfs;defeasible" legalruleml:key="rule_1a">
				<if>
					<Atom legalruleml:key="rule_1a_atom1">
						<Var type="/ontology/concepts/action">X</Var>
						<Rel iri="/ontology/concepts/complaint">is a Complaint</Rel>
					</Atom>
				</if>
				<then>
					<Atom legalruleml:key="rule_1a_atom2">
						<Var>X</Var>
						<Rel iri="/ontology/concepts/dissatisfaction">is an expression of dissatisfaction made to a Supplier in relation to its Telecommunications Products or the complaints handling process itself, where a response or Resolution is explicitly or implicitly expected by the Consumer</Rel>
					</Atom>
				</then>
			</Rule>
			<Rule legalruleml:strength="&dfs;defeasible" legalruleml:key="rule_1b">
				<if>
					<Atom legalruleml:key="rule_1b_atom1">
						<Var type="/ontology/concepts/action">X</Var>
						<Rel iri="/ontology/concepts/dissatisfaction">is an expression of dissatisfaction made to a Supplier in relation to its Telecommunications Products or the complaints handling process itself, where a response or Resolution is explicitly or implicitly expected by the Consumer</Rel>
					</Atom>
				</if>
				<then>
					<Atom legalruleml:key="rule_1b_atom2">
						<Var>X</Var>
						<Rel iri="/ontology/concepts/complaint">is a Complaint</Rel>
					</Atom>
				</then>
			</Rule>
		</Rulebase>
		<!-- Sentence 2 -->
		<!--Original: 
      An initial call to a provider to request a service or information or to request support 
      is not necessarily a Complaint. 
    -->
		<!-- Paraphrase:
      If Y is an initial call to a provider to request a service or information or to 
      request support,
      then it is not necessarily the case that Y is a complaint.
    -->
		<!-- Issues:
      While <Neg> would normally be stated in controlled English as "is not the case that",
      which is stronger than the original phrase " is not necessarily",
      the sense of the original is captured by weakening the rule to a defeater.
    -->
		<Rulebase>
			<Rule legalruleml:strength="&dfs;defeater" legalruleml:key="rule_2">
				<if>
					<Atom legalruleml:key="rule_2_atom1">
						<Var type="/ontology/concepts/action">Y</Var>
						<Rel iri="/ontology/concepts/request">is an initial call to a provider to request a service or information or to request support</Rel>
					</Atom>
				</if>
				<then>
					<Neg>
						<Atom legalruleml:key="rule_2_atom2">
							<Var>Y</Var>
							<Rel iri="/ontology/concepts/complaint">is a Complaint</Rel>
						</Atom>
					</Neg>
				</then>
			</Rule>
		</Rulebase>
		<!-- Sentence 3 -->
		<!--Original: 
      An initial call to report a fault or service difficulty is not a Complaint. 
    -->
		<!-- Paraphrase:
      If W is an initial call to report a fault or service difficulty,
      then it is not the case that W is a complaint.
    -->
		<Rulebase>
			<qualification>
				<legalruleml:Overrides>
					<!-- Issues: The individuals referenced here are non-ground rules with
             different free variables. The rules are implicitly determined to be
             in conflict if the logical closure of their consequents (then part) is inconsistent.-->
					<Rule legalruleml:keyref="#rule_3"/>
					<Rule legalruleml:keyref="#rule_1b"/>
				</legalruleml:Overrides>
			</qualification>
			<Rule legalruleml:strength="&dfs;defeasible" legalruleml:key="rule_3">
				<if>
					<Atom legalruleml:key="rule_3_atom1">
						<Var>W</Var>
						<Rel>is an initial call to report a fault or service difficulty</Rel>
					</Atom>
				</if>
				<then>
					<Neg>
						<Atom legalruleml:key="rule_3_atom2">
							<Var>W</Var>
							<Rel iri="/ontology/concepts/complaint">is a Complaint</Rel>
						</Atom>
					</Neg>
				</then>
			</Rule>
		</Rulebase>
		<!-- Sentence 4 -->
		<!--Original: 
      However, if a Customer advises that they want this initial call treated as a 
      Complaint, the Supplier will also treat this initial call as a Complaint. 
    -->
		<!-- Paraphrase:
     If Z is an initial call to a provider to request a service or information or to 
     request support and
      Z is an initial call that the Customer advises they want treated as a Complaint, 
     then Z is a Complaint.
    -->
		<!-- Issues:
    The original phrasing "the Supplier will also treat this initial call as a" has a deontic flavor 
    which is not fully captured by the conversion to "Z is a".
    However, the legal effect of the paraphrase is completely equivalent to the original.
    -->
		<Rulebase>
			<qualification>
				<legalruleml:Overrides>
					<Rule legalruleml:keyref="#rule_4"/>
					<Rule legalruleml:keyref="#rule_3"/>
				</legalruleml:Overrides>
			</qualification>
			<Rule legalruleml:strength="&dfs;defeater" legalruleml:key="rule_4">
				<if>
					<And>
						<Atom legalruleml:key="rule_4_atom1">
							<Var>Z</Var>
							<Rel>is an initial call to report a fault or service difficulty</Rel>
						</Atom>
						<Atom legalruleml:key="rule_4_atom2">
							<Var>Z</Var>
							<Rel>is an initial call that the Customer advises they want treated as a Complaint</Rel>
						</Atom>
					</And>
				</if>
				<then>
					<Atom legalruleml:key="rule_4_atom3">
						<Var>Z</Var>
						<Rel iri="/ontology/concepts/complaint">is a Complaint</Rel>
					</Atom>
				</then>
			</Rule>
		</Rulebase>
		<!-- Sentence 5 -->
		<!-- Original:
      If a Supplier is uncertain, a Supplier must ask a Customer if they wish to make 
      a Complaint and must rely on the Customerâ??s response.
    -->
		<!-- This statement is not definitional, but is deontic.
         It also requires a more detailed domain of discourse,
         including at least the Supplier.
    -->
	</Assert>
</RuleML>