> 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).
Tomorrow, Monday, this time-of-day is not possible for me and other TC members interested in these important issues, so let me suggest to move this special 'taskforce' meeting to our usual time-of-day, 3:30PM Eastern.
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
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:
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)
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
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:
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.
<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"/>
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
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.
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
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_.
On 7/2/2012 9:56 AM, Guido Governatori wrote:
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
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
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
Palazzo Dal Monte Gaudenzi - Via Galliera, 3
I - 40121 BOLOGNA (ITALY)
Tel +39 051 277217
Fax +39 051 260782
LA RICERCA C’È E SI VEDE:
5 per mille all'Università di Bologna - C.F.: 80007010376
Questa informativa è inserita in automatico dal sistema al fine esclusivo della realizzazione dei fini istituzionali dell’ente.