Re: [legalruleml] Version Control Commit by taraathan

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

Hi Tara,

first of all many thanks for taking in care this task to revise the 
meta-model.
During my conversion from LegalRuleML to RDF I noticed several issues, 
so I have really appreciated your re-factoring work.
Thanks also for the very useful discussion!
My comments below in the text.

Yours,
Monica
Il 06/07/2013 13:58, Tara Athan ha scritto:
> Hi, all. I've been trying to incite some discussion on the skype chat, 
> but got no takers. I'll embed and extend my skype comments here, for 
> the record and for the agenda of the next meeting.
>
> I've just posted the Glossary document in the repo, and I have been 
> going through it and the RDFS schemas while preparing my slides on the 
> metamodel. The definitions in the Glossary don't all make sense to me, 
> especially when considered as the basis of a taxonomy, as embodied in 
> the metamodel. Here are some particular questions.
>
> [7/5/13 6:41:15 PM] Tara Athan: In the Glossary, we define Authority 
> as "any body with the power to create, endorse, or enforce legal 
> norms" but we don't say what a "body" is. Would it be correct to 
> replace "body" with the generic "entity", or is there some implicit 
> restriction associated with "body"?
*** entity is too generic from my point of view: it could include also 
"abstract entity" or "non-physical entity". Each country lists, in the 
constitution or in high level law, which bodies are authorized to 
endorse legal documents and also which legal documents.
I find very useful this definition of authority:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/authority
Proposal:
"a person or organization having political or administrative power or 
competence to create, endorse, or enforce legal norms."

> [7/5/13 6:48:45 PM] Tara Athan: Regarding "AuxiliaryParty - a entity 
> in addition to the bearer of a deontic specification", isn't this a 
> role? It is a different kind of role than the metadata <lrml:Role>, 
> but nevertheless it is not an essential characteristic of an entity, 
> but is a part that some entity plays (i.e. a role that it fills) 
> relative to a particular deontic specification, for some time period 
> that is a part, typically not the entirety, of its history.
>
> Suggestion:
>
> Bearer - a role of a deontic specification filled by the entity to 
> which the specification is primarily directed
> AuxiliaryParty - a role of a deontic specification filled by entities 
> to which the specification is related, but not primarily directed
> [7/5/13 7:12:06 PM] Tara Athan: "Compliance - a situation …"  - is 
> there a neutral concept of "situation" that I could reference in the 
> metamodel, or would this be better left as a subclass of "Thing"?
> [7/5/13 7:46:29 PM] Tara Athan: Bearer - a role *in* a deontic 
> specification filled by the entity to which the specification is 
> primarily directed
> AuxiliaryParty - a role *in* a deontic specification filled by 
> entities to which the specification is related, but not primarily 
> directed
*** good for me
> [7/5/13 8:00:43 PM] Tara Athan: "LegalSource - Any source of legal 
> norms represented in any format."
> I don't understand this definition as written.
*** LegalSource - any source of legal norms expressed/formulated in any 
format (textual, picture, video, audio, etc.)
> As we've constructed the syntax, Isn't the legal norm (playing the 
> role of) a source, and if so, in relation to what (a LegalRuleML text)?
*** the norm is a command to do or not to do something endorsed by an 
authority, directed by an addresser (in our case is the AuxiliaryParty) 
to an addressee (in our case is the Bearer) (Kelsen).
The norm could be expressed in different way: text, picture (road 
signal), video, audio, behavior.
One of those format is the "legal text" endorsed by an authority. The 
text is not the unique form even if the most frequent.
> But this definition gives the impression that the legal norm *has* the 
> source (from "source of legal norms" --> the source belongs to the 
> legal norm, the legal norm has the source)
*** Legal norms areExpressed in LegalSource
*** LegalSource hasAFormat X
*** LegalSource isAnExpression of Legal norms
*** LegalRule is anInterpretation of LegalSource

> Some other suggestions, beyond what was in the Skype chat
>
> FactualStatement - a statement that expresses a fact.
> This wording helps our taxonomy - it tells us what FactualStatement is 
> a subclass of - Statement. One question for clarification - is there 
> any distinction between "legal" factual statements and those that do 
> not have legal status? If a factual statement is formalized in 
> LegalRuleML, can it be assumed to have legal status?
*** in our context (of LegalRuleML) all the facts should be relevant 
under the legal point of view. If we want to distinguish between facts 
"legally valid" because coming from a particular process (e.g. evidence 
in the trial, evidence collected by police - qualified as "evidences") 
from the other (e.g. opinions, interpretation of the fact, etc. - 
qualified as simple facts), we can, but from my point of view all facts 
of the knowledge base are equally valuable for the legal reasoning.
I am wondering (to Guido) if there is a hierarchy also for the fact like 
for the rules (e.g. overrides the facts??).
> Regarding the glossary entry for lrml:Context, I believe we discussed 
> earlier the idea that
>
> {Text} + {Context} = {Rule}
LegalSource+Context (that includes interpretation)={Rule}
> However, this is not reflected in the Glossary definition.
> Also the Glossary definition gives an impression, to me, that a 
> context is only applicable to a single text.
>
> Suggestion:
>
> Original
> Context - a context or legal interpretation that applies associations 
> of the proper author, authorities, jurisdiction, source, and other 
> characteristics to a rule and/or to parts of a rule.
> -->
> Context - a context or legal interpretation that may apply 
> associations of the proper author, authorities, jurisdiction, source, 
> and other characteristics to texts and/or to parts of texts, and 
> through this application, generate rules.
*** Great for me. Just one point: to texts and/or to parts of texts 
--->to texts and/or to parts of texts (or other format of legal sources)
> Question: is there ever a case when a context is modular - that 
> certain characteristics are specified in one block, other 
> characteristics in another, and the rule is generated by the 
> application of both? Alternately, can a context "import" another 
> context, perhaps through the key/keyref mechanism?
*** In the meta-model this situation could happen frequently. So it is 
really interesting to import fragments of other contexts. However it is 
better to have some neutral/general blocks (without toStatement or empty 
_p) and later to reuse them in different Context definitions with the 
key/keyref mechanism.



> Tara
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that 
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> .


--
===================================
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
====================================