Refining the formulae for the LegalRuleML GitHub

Dear LegalRuleMLs,

I am working on the examples that we selected for the LegalRuleML GitHub. I have questions on the first formulae that we commented last time. I cut & pasted them in the file attached.

I think it is better to first address these questions, then I will polish the file accordingly and then I will proceed.

This is what I would like to discuss with you on Thursday evening.

Thanks!

Livio

========================================================================================================================================================

QUESTION #1:

The Akoma Ntoso of the Smoking act is available on https://www.legislation.gov.uk (UK Publication Office) on a persistent link:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/3/enacted/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/3/enacted/data.akn

Thus, I guess we may connect its sections with the statements in the LegalRuleML file. From what I read online, I think the proper way to do it is:

<lrml:LegalSources>

<lrml:LegalSource key="SmokingProhibitionScotlandAct2016" sameAs="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/3/enacted/data.akn"/>

<lrml:LegalSource key="SmokingProhibitionScotlandAct2016section1_1" sameAs="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/3/enacted/data.akn#section-1-1"/>

<lrml:LegalSource key="SmokingProhibitionScotlandAct2016section1_2" sameAs="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/3/enacted/data.akn#section-1-2"/>

<lrml:LegalSource key="SmokingProhibitionScotlandAct2016section2" sameAs="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/3/enacted/data.akn#section-2"/>

</lrml:LegalSources>

<lrml:Associations>

<lrml:Association>

<lrml:appliesSource keyref="#SmokingProhibitionScotlandAct2016section1_1" />

<lrml:toTarget keyref="#section1_1_Statements" />

</lrml:Association>

<lrml:Association>

<lrml:appliesSource keyref="#SmokingProhibitionScotlandAct2016section1_2" />

<lrml:toTarget keyref="#section1_2_Statements" />

</lrml:Association>

<lrml:Association>

<lrml:appliesSource keyref="#SmokingProhibitionScotlandAct2016section2" />

<lrml:toTarget keyref="#section2_Statements" />

</lrml:Association>

</lrml:Associations>

Correct? Note that "section-1-1" is an eId in the Akoma Ntoso file "data.akn".

========================================================================================================================================================

QUESTION #2:

Last time we said that we do not need quantifiers, as variables are (implicitly) universally quantified over the KB. Thus, if I want to use the same variable in two different rules, I have to use "key" and "keyRef".

My question is: why should we use "key" and "keyRef" only when variables occur in different rules? I think we have to do so also when they occur within the SAME rule (as I actually did in the DAPRECO knowledge base). Variables are universally quantified over the KB, so they must indeed have the same name.

Thus, the following Atom(s) occurring in section1_1_PrescriptiveStatement1:

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>Vehicle</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var>vehicle</ruleml:Var>

</ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>IsPrivate</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var>vehicle</ruleml:Var>

</ruleml:Atom>

should be changed into:

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>Vehicle</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var key=":myID">vehicle</ruleml:Var>

</ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>IsPrivate</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var keyRef="#myID"/>

</ruleml:Atom>

In other words, we always use "key" the first time we introduce a variable and then "keyRef" for all other occurrences, both within the same rule or within other rules. We use a different "key" only when we indeed want to talk about a different vehicle (e.g., because we want to compare two vehicles).

Is my interpretation correct?

========================================================================================================================================================

QUESTION #3:

For modelling "The schedule provides for fixed penalties for offences under section 1." we decided to add the following <ruleml:Atom>:

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>PenaltyFor</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var>penalty</ruleml:Var>

<ruleml:Var>offence</ruleml:Var>

</ruleml:Atom>

And then a constitutive rule for each pair (offence, penalty) found in the schedule. But, indeed, in the schedule there is only one of such constitutive rules (see first link I posted above):

"The fixed penalty for an offence under section 1 is £100."

I do not exactly know how to model this (single) constitutive rule. Note that section 1 says "It is an offence for an adult to smoke in a private motor vehicle" and we modeled this by stating that, under these conditions, it is forbidden to smoke:

<lrml:Prohibition>

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>Smoke</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var>adult</ruleml:Var>

</ruleml:Atom>

</lrml:Prohibition>

But how is this related with the variable "<ruleml:Var>offence</ruleml:Var>" above?? In order to talk about "an offence under section 1" we should reify the smoking action into that specific offence. In other words, we should introduce a constitutive rule stating "The fact that an adult smokes in his private vehicle is an offence under section 1". Or, alternatively, a constitutive rule stating that if an adult smoke in the private vehicle, he commits an offence under section 1.

<ruleml:if>

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>Smoke</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var>adult</ruleml:Var>

</ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>IsIn</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var>adult</ruleml:Var>

<ruleml:Var>vehicle</ruleml:Var>

</ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>Vehicle</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var>vehicle</ruleml:Var>

</ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>IsPrivate</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var>vehicle</ruleml:Var>

</ruleml:Atom>

</ruleml:if>

<ruleml:then>

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>Commit</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var>adult</ruleml:Var>

<ruleml:Var>offence</ruleml:Var>

</ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Atom>

<ruleml:Rel>OffenceUnderSection1</ruleml:Rel>

<ruleml:Var>offence</ruleml:Var>

</ruleml:Atom>

</ruleml:then>

And now we can codify that £100 is a penalty for an offence that satisfy the predicate <ruleml:Rel>OffenceUnderSection1</ruleml:Rel>.

Is my interpretation correct? Do you like my solution?

Thanks

Livio

legalruleml message