|
On 8/13/15 1:00 PM, Guido Governatori
wrote:
Hi Tara,
Thanks for the note and for the presentation at
RuleML. And for the movie recommendation….
Some off-the-cuff (and defeasible) responses to your
notes….
I thought I sent this to the
LegalRuleML list after the tutorial, but
apparently I sent it to the wrong email
address:
I got a lot of questions from the
tutorial presentation.
There was interest in how LegalRuleML will
be adapted to the individual legal
systems, and then how would they
interoperate.
As I understand it, LegalRuleML has no conception
of 'individual legal systems' per se. Rather, all
of the contextualisation components should be able
to handle that. In addition, I understood the
intention to be that laws no matter where would be
expressed in the 'language' of LegalRuleML.
Interoperability is intended to be 'guaranteed' by
having any law written in the same ML. However, it
remains to be seen just how LegalRuleML is used and
whether issues arise that require adaptation.
I agree with Adam. Indeed, we have to see if RuleML will be
used to determine what adaptations are needed.
I don't think we need to change LegalRuleML at this point, but *if*
LegalRuleML is going to be adopted, I think we have to have a
reasonable answer to this question.
As Guido mentions below, one aspect of adapting LegalRuleML to
different legal systems is different legal ontologies. This suggests
that the interoperation between such legal systems may depend on
some alignment of these different legal ontologies.
STIT = "Sees to it that" is an early form of
deontic logic, usually a generic _expression_ over
actions and focusing on the result (meaning it does
not specify what the action is that brings the
result). This language has always had an agent as
in "Bill sees to it that the pizza is delivered to
Jill". Doesn't LegalRuleML also tie an agent to an
action and as the bearer of the modal role - Bill
must pay the penalty to Jill - has Bill as the agent
of paying the penalty and as the one who is
obligated.
Indeed we have agency in LegalRuleML. I’m not sure I/O logics are
really suitable for modelling real life norms. For example, you
cannot have deontic operators in the input part.
There was a little confusion about the
expressivity of an RDF-based syntax - it was
necessary to explain that, like OWL in
RDF/XML syntax, the expressivity is not
limited by the utilization of an RDF
metamodel. There was additionally interest
in the application of defeasibility at lower
expressivitiies. After some discussion, we
concluded that defeasibility is not relevant
at the level of RDFS or less unless there is
an explicit mechanism for asserting
conflicts, which would increase the
expressivity of the language.
Don't I understand the issue here.
It's not an issue for LegalRuleML, but the point is that it is not
possible to create an inconsistency in RDF, so there are no
conflicts to resolve with defeasibility. There also aren't any
rules, so it is something of a moot point. I think it is mostly an
example of someone who is primarily interested in ontologies trying
to figure out if they need to understand defeasibility.
There was also a question about the
reasons for the selection of XML, especially
since there was an earlier presentation by
Geoff Sutcliffe in which he heavily
critisised XML.
I'd have to understand the criticisms of XML.
He wasn't specific, just asserted, rather emphatically, that a
primary advantage of his forthcoming TPTP syntax for ontologies is
doing away with XML. It is a weak point, because there are already
ontology languages (e.g. Manchester syntax) that are not XML-based.
But no one responded to it publicly, so it left the students with
the impression that XML is inherently bad.
There was a law student in the tutorial
(Christine from Brazil) who is developing a
legal ontology . She wanted to know if
LegalRuleML would have its own legal ontology.
I asked her to send me her papers.
LegalRuleML is not intended to have its own legal
ontology, and we were deliberately neutral on this
point. Yet, one wonders how long that position can
be sustained.
The issue of ontologies is related to different legal systems. For
example, the concept of “crime” in the Italian legal system is
different form the concept of “crime” in the Australian legal
system, and these are defined in Sections of Acts/Codes.
Furthermore, it Italy, the concept of crime is different in
criminal law and in civil law, and both concepts are defined by
articles of the Criminal Code and the Civil Code.
I met Sagar Sunkle from Tata Consultancy
in India who is using DR-prolog for proofs
of regulatory GRC (governance, risk and
compliance). An interesting twist is the
explanation of non-compliance for purpose of
negations.
Sounds like a point worth expanding on.
Not sure to understand what you mean "explanation of
non-compliance for purpose of negations”/
Typo: negations => negotiations.
As I understand it, a company wants to negotiate that they should
not be required to comply with some rule, due to some exceptional
circumstances, although these exceptions may not be explicit in the
legal code or contract. Anyway, the presentation is here:
http://www.slideshare.net/ruleml2012/rule-ml2015-explanation-of-proofs-of-regulatory-noncomplianceusing-semantic-vocabularies
For what I know they look at norms represented as
defeasible rules and given a case (set of facts) you use the
rules to determine what are the obligations in force for that
cases. The explanation is to produce a derivations. The
derivation is the explanation of the case. In LegalRuleML we
have (legal) sources associated with rules, the explanation
can be understand as which norms have been used, and whether
they have been violated or complied with.
I spoke to Tom Gordon
this morning (who did not attend the
LegalRuleML tutorial). He did attend the
API4KP presentation, and managed to divert the
Q&A period to a discussion with a question
about the uptake of MOF metamodels, which was
answered at length by John Hall.
Chuckle.
Cheers,
Adam
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in
Scotland, No SC013683.
Tha Oilthigh Obar Dheathain na charthannas clàraichte
ann an Alba, Àir. SC013683.
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.
|