Re: FW: [legalruleml] Re: Time Instants or Time Points

["Adrian Paschke" <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>]

Hi Tara,

> Adrian- we already considered using a more general <lrml:Collection>
> element
> for all the various LegalRuleML collections (References, Associations,
> etc).
> However because we are aiming to have a schema that can be expressed in
> XSD
> 1.0, we cannot use an attribute to determine the content model of an
> element. That is why we are forced to have a different name for each type
> of
> collection that has a different content model. At a minimum the name of
> the
> element needs to  indicate that it contains only temporal entities so that
> it can have a content model of zero to many ruleml:Time children. The
> metamodel concept &lrmlmm;Collection would be the abstract superclass for
> all of these collections.

As solution could be to use XSD 1.1. as discussed in the LegalRuleML telecon on October 10th

[10/10/2012 6:12:53 PM] Adrian Paschke: <Rule style="definition"> would be much more self-explanatory for me then <DefinitionRuleText>
[10/10/2012 6:13:08 PM] Harold Boley: http://www.xfront.com/xml-schema-1-1/
[10/10/2012 6:14:20 PM] Harold Boley: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-xmlschema11-1-20090130/#Inherited_attributes

> 
> Regarding <ruleml:Time>, aside from the <content> extension point, is it a
> syntactic shortcut for an atomic formula such as
> 
> <Equivalent>
>   <Time key="t1" type="&time-ont;time-concept">
>          ...some arguments...
>   </Time>
>  <Atom>
>     <oid><Ind iri="#t1"/></oid>
>     <Rel iri="&ruleml;Time"/>
>     <slot>
>         <Ind iri="&ruleml:type"/>
>         <Ind iri="&time-ont;time-concept"/>
>     </slot>
>          ...same arguments...
>   </Atom>
> </Equivalent>
> 
> or am I missing something?
> 

No, it is not a syntactic short cut for an Atom. It is a reified function, which interprets the arguments as a time. 

-Adrian


> 
> 
> On 10/20/2012 1:34 PM, Adrian Paschke wrote:
> 
> Hi Tara,
>  
> Yes, I also think we need both. That is why I propose to use a more
> general
> <Collection> which can be typed (type="..") with different sorts.
>  
> 1. Is there a default selection between continuous and discrete timescale
> that would resolve this ambiguity?
>  
> Yes, the default one is a time interval semantics. 
> (On a side note: this distinction in interval semantics and point in time
> semantics is important as it avoids ambiguity in the algebra operators for
> complex events, as we have shown in our interval base event calculus
> semantic for complex event processing)
>  
> 2. According to the schema, the content model appears to be essentially
> unrestricted:
> <ruleml:Time><ruleml:content>...anything...</ruleml:content></ruleml:Time>
>  
> No, the main content type is an <arg> with e.g. Ind, Data, Var or Expr or
> a
> slotted representation with a <slot>. Therefore it reuses the content
> model
> of <arg> and <slot> from <Atom>.
> The additional choice of a <content> role tag with unrestricted XML
> content
> model is an extension point of the Reaction RuleML syntax, which allows
> embedding one of the many existing XML serializations for time data from
> the
> various communities which deal with time.
>  
> 3. Is it possible to use the element <ruleml:Time> to describe a timepoint
> that is 6 months after some named timepoint?
>  
> Yes, this is a temporal operation 
>  
> <After>
>       <ruleml:Time key="#t1">...</ruleml:Time>
>       <ruleml:Time><ruleml:Data
> xsi:type="xs:duration">6M</ruleml:Data></ruleml:Time>
> </After>
>  
>  
> BTW, I just encountered that I had sent my regrets for the last telecon on
> Wednesday not from my gmx address but from my university address  which
> apparently seems to be rejected by the mailing list. Sorry, for that. I
> attach it again with the example version which preserves the advantages
> and
> conveniently combines it with the rest of RuleML.
>  
> -Adrian
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org
> [mailto:legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Tara Athan
> Sent: Samstag, 20. Oktober 2012 17:26
> To: legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [legalruleml] Time Instants or Time Points
>  
> Thanks Adrian.
>  
> In legal applications, it appears to me that both discrete and continuous
> of
> timescales are needed.
> When describing an observation of the time at which a physical event takes
> place (e.g. publication), then a discrete timescale is appropriate because
> this captures the fact that all observations have limited precision.
> Discrete timescales capture this uncertainty as intervals in time in a
> similar way that significant digits are used to record numerical
> measurements in general, (except that the time interval is assumed to lie
> on
> the future side of the time observation rather than being centered on the
> measurement as is done with significant digits.)
>  
> When defining a fiat event (e.g start of enforceability), then a
> continuous
> timescale may be appropriate because the definition can be made with
> infinite precision.
>  
> I have included the <ruleml:Time> element in the LegalRuleML schema, but
> so
> far I have only implement a restricted content model of the form
>  
> <ruleml:Time><ruleml:Data
> xsi:type="xs:dateTime>2012-10-02T10:45:34-00:00</ruleml:Data></ruleml:Time>
>  
> I have a couple of questions:
>  
> 1. Based on what you say below, the interpretation of this construct
> appears
> to be ambiguous because there is no @type on the Time element.
>  
> If a discrete timescale is adopted, this would represent an interval of
> length one second.
>  
> If a continuous timescale is adopted, this would be interpreted as a time
> instant, in particular the beginning of the time interval described by
> <ruleml:Data xsi:type="xs:dateTime>2012-10-02T10:45:34-00:00</ruleml:Data>
>  
> Is there a default selection between continuous and discrete timescale
> that
> would resolve this ambiguity?
>  
> Since the argument
> <ruleml:Data xsi:type="xs:dateTime>2012-10-02T10:45:34-00:00</ruleml:Data>
> already denotes a temporal entity, a time period of length 1 second (the
> value space of xs:dateTime is actual time periods and is based on ISO
> 8601),
> I would expect the default, if there is one, to be the discrete timescale.
>  
>  
> 2. I would like to include more of the content model for this element as
> defined in the Reaction RuleML schema
> http://www.csw.inf.fu-berlin.de/RRML1.0/xsd/modules/time_module.xsd
>  
> but the interpretation of this more general syntax is not clear to me.
> According to the schema, the content model appears to be essentially
> unrestricted:
> <ruleml:Time><ruleml:content>...anything...</ruleml:content></ruleml:Time>
>  
> Is it possible to use the element <ruleml:Time> to describe a timepoint
> that
> is 6 months after some named timepoint?
> ( <ruleml:Time key="#t1">...</ruleml:Time> )
>  
>  
> Tara
>  
> On 10/20/2012 9:24 AM, Adrian Paschke wrote:
> 
> Hi Tara,
>  
> Yes, there are many existing ontologies and vocabularies/schemas available
> for time. Since there is nothing special about the representation of time
> in
> the legal domain which would require a domain-specific model, we should
> reuse them.
>  
> Reaction RuleML therefore has a generic approach which supports this
> reuse.
> There is a basic distinction in whether the temporal aspect are based on
> the
> relationships between "time instants" (type="ruleml:TimeInstant") or "time
> intervals" (type="ruleml:TimeInterval">). Depending on this core
> distinction
> a time becomes a linear continuous time model with points in time called
> "time instants"(<Time type="ruleml:TimeInstant">) or a discrete time
> interval model with "time points" (<Time type="ruleml:TimePoint">) as a
> relative time interval with an absolute reference or a relative reference
> to
> some given time interval.
>  
> A duration is an amounts of time, .e.g. <ruleml:Time> <ruleml:Data
> xsi:type="xs:duration">P5Y2M10D</ruleml:Data> </ruleml:Time> or other
> quantities of duration values with other types of time units including
> nominal time units, e.g.3 years  <ruleml:Time><Ind
> iri="owl-time:Year">3</Ind><ruleml:Time> and discrete time functions
> (<ruleML:Time><Expr>).
>  
> <Interval> in Reaction RuleML is a generic concept for modeling intervals
> (Time/Spatial/Event/Action/Situation Intervals). Time intervals are then
> either based on the  segments of a linear continuum of time instants or
> the
> discrete time points (which span a smaller time interval).
>  
> Reaction RuleML also has a rich set of algebra operators for intervals
> (Allens relations such as During, Overlaps, ...) and general time
> arithmetic's and aggregators (such as Every, Timer, Any, ...-), and a
> general <Operator> (XML extension point) for adding further special
> operators from the many existing domain specific languages.
>  
> So, depending on whether the Legal RuleML collection is a set of time
> points
> it would be <lrml:TimePoints>  or <lrml:TimeInstants> in the case of time
> instants.
> I would propose to be more generic and say <lrml:Collection
> type="ruleml:TimePoint">, so that we can have different types of
> Collections.
>  
> -Adrian
>  
>  
> From: legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org
> [mailto:legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Tara Athan
> Sent: Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2012 01:02
> To: legalruleml@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [legalruleml] Time Instants or Time Points
>  
> There is a relatively recent date-time ontology published by OMG
> (http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=911074) that addresses
> time
> scale granularity and also solves the problem of duration (is 1 month
> greater, equal or less than 30 days?)
>  
> While LegalRuleML is not supposed to be dependent on any particular
> ontology, this work does provide a useful conceptualization that allows
> certain intervals of time to be specified with a single datum. For example
> the date 2012-10-12 corresponds to a particular interval of time which can
> be specialized to a particular 24 hr interval when a timezone is added.
> This
> general concept of a point on a time scale with a particular granularity
> is
> called "time point". It is more general than a "point in time" or "time
> instant", but could include that concept if the time scale is continuous.
>  
> I proposed that we adopt this terminology, (but not the ontology) by
> referring to a collection of <ruleml:Time> elements as <lrml:TimePoints>
>  
> This also avoids the unfortunate plural "Times", which could be confused
> with multiplication or repitition, while retaining generality regarding
> the
> granularity, if any, of the time scale.
>  
> Example
>  
> <lrml:TimePoints>
>    <ruleml:Time key="t1"> <ruleml:Data
> xsi:type="xs:dateTime">2012-07-21T00:00:00Z</ruleml:Data> </ruleml:Time>
>    <ruleml:Time key="t2"> <ruleml:Data
> xsi:type="xs:date">2012-07-21</ruleml:Data> </ruleml:Time>
> </lrml:TimePoints>
>  
> Tara
>  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legalruleml-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legalruleml-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legalruleml-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legalruleml-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
>  
>

Attachment: ex2.1.8-defeasible_v2.lrml
Description: Binary data