[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xacml] FW: [members] (ANN) Proposed Charter for LegalRuleML Technical Committee
See my suggestion at  for some sort of liaison between us and them.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
On Behalf Of Erik Rissanen
"Law" certainly is more than just access control. Laws do not just deny/allow things, they also require thing, quantify things, and so on.
The proposed TC will have a small set of use cases that can also be addressed with XACML—for example, our profiles for Export Compliance and Intellectual Property protection.
In a larger sense, any *process* for putting laws into a formal rule language can also be used to put access control rules into XACML. If the LegalRuleML TC define “law” to include any set of published rules governing the conduct of a group of people, then XACML is fully subsumed by them—it will at best become an alternate syntax and handy architecture for handling a subset of their use cases. If they define “law” to mean legislation and regulations ratified and enforced by recognized authoritative government entities, then the similarities are mostly conceptual, but nevertheless very strong.
In any case it seems there could be mutual benefits from some level of coordination between the XACML and LegalRuleML TCs, if only to prevent divergent solutions in overlapping areas of concern.
On Behalf Of email@example.com
To OASIS Members:
A draft TC charter has been submitted to establish the LegalRuleML Technical Committee. In accordance with the OASIS TC Process Policy section 2.2: (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2009-07-30.php#formation) the proposed charter is hereby submitted for comment. The comment period shall remain open until 11:45 pm ET on 12 December 2011.
OASIS maintains a mailing list for the purpose of submitting comments on proposed charters. Any OASIS member may post to this list by sending email to: firstname.lastname@example.org. All messages will be publicly archived at: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-charter-discuss/. Members who wish to receive emails must join the group by selecting "join group" on the group home page: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oasis-charter-discuss/. Employees of organizational members do not require primary representative approval to subscribe to the oasis-charter-discuss e-mail.
A telephone conference will be held among the Convener, the OASIS TC Administrator, and those proposers who wish to attend within four days of the close of the comment period. The announcement and call-in information will be noted on the OASIS Charter Discuss Group Calendar.
We encourage member comment and ask that you note the name of the proposed TC (LegalRuleML) in the subject line of your email message.
=== Proposed Charter
1.a Name of the TC:
1.b Statement of Purpose:
Legal texts are the source of norms, guidelines, and rules that often feed into different concrete (usually XML-based) Web applications. Legislative documents typically provide general norms and specific procedural rules for eGovernment and eCommerce environments, while contracts specify the conditions of services and business rules (e.g. service level agreements for cloud computing), and judgments provide information about arguments and interpretation of norms that establish concrete case-law.
The ability to have proper and expressive conceptual models of the various and multifaceted aspects of norms, guidelines, and general legal knowledge is a key factor for the development and deployment of successful applications.
The LegalRuleML TC aims to produce a rule interchange language for the legal domain. This will enable modeling and reasoning such that implementers can structure, evaluate, and compare legal arguments constructed using the rule representation tools provided.
1.c Scope of Work:
Based on this, the work of the LegalRuleML Technical Committee will focus on three specific needs:
1. Closing the gap between natural language text description and semantic norm modeling, in order to realize an integrated and self-contained representation of legal resources that can be made available on the Web as XML representations [Palmirani 2009]. This formal underpinning can then foster Semantic Web technologies such as: NLP, Information Retrieval (IR), graph representation, as well as Web ontologies and rules.
2. To provide an expressive XML standard for modeling normative rules that is able to satisfy the legal domain requirements. This will enable use of a legal reasoning level on top of the ontological layer that aligns with the W3C envisioned Semantic Web stack. This approach seeks also to fill the gap between regulative norms, guidelines and business rules in order to capture and model the processes embedded in those guidelines and make them usable for the workflow and business layer [Governatori 2010; Rotolo 2009; Grosof 2004];
3. Supporting the Linked Open Data [Berners-Lee 2010] approach to modeling regarding not only the semantics of raw data (acts, contracts, court files, judgments, etc.), but also of rules in conjunction with their functionality and
The LegalRuleML TC work will address these three main goals and provide means for modeling norms, guidelines, judgements, and contracts using a semantic approach.
In particular, the LegalRuleML work will extend the existing RuleML, RIF and related Web rule work by improved modeling as well as representing and capturing the legal knowledge embedded in legal texts.
Specifically, the LegalRuleML work will facilitate the following functionalities.
A) Support for modeling different types of rules:
B) Implementing ISOMORPHISM [Bench-Capon-Coenen 1992]. To ease validation and maintenance, there should be a one-to-one correspondence between the rules in the formal model and the units of (controlled) natural language text that express the rules in the original legal sources, such as sections of legislation.
C) Manage the REIFICATION [Gordon 1995] of rules that are objects with properties, such as Jurisdiction, Authority, Temporal attributes [Palmirani 2010; Governatori 2009; Governatori 2005]. These elements have to be added to the current RuleML to enable effective legal reasoning.
D) Represent NORMATIVE EFFECTS and VALUES. There are many normative effects that follow from applying rules, such as obligations, permissions, prohibitions, and also more articulated effects such as those introduced. Usually, some values are promoted by legal rules as well.
F) Implement DEFEASIBILITY [Gordon 1995, Prakken 1996, Sartor 2005]. When the antecedent of a rule is satisfied by the facts of a case (or via other rules), the conclusion of the rule presumably holds, but is not necessarily true. The
Lastly, the LegalRuleML work will also aim to model legal procedural rules. Rules not only regulate the procedures for resolving legal conflicts, but also are used for arguing or reasoning about whether or not some action or state complies with other, substantive rules. In particular, rules are required for procedures which regulate methods for detecting violations of the law, i.e., which determine the normative effects triggered by norm violations, such as reparative obligations, which are meant to repair or compensate violations. Note that these constructions can give rise to very complex rule dependencies, because the violation of a single rule can activate other (reparative) rules, which in turn, in case of their violation, refer to other rules, and so forth.
In this case, the Deliberation RuleML and Reaction RuleML parts [Boley et al. 2010] are coordinated within the LegalRuleML module to produce benefits for applications and reasoning engines (avoiding redundancy in the rules as well as
Compatibility: Compatibility with the RuleML 1.0 schemas [Athan et al. 2011; Boley 2011; Boley et al. 2010; Wagner et al. 2004; Boley et al. 2001] and interoperability with the main languages for rule modeling, mainly Common Logic, RIF, and SWRL.
Out of Scope: Developing tools for LegalRuleML. (This will be started by the supporters of this proposal and others independently once a first stable version of LegalRuleML exists.)
The following deliverables are expected:
D1. LegalRuleML semantic level (e.g. temporal dimension) drafts - within six months of the first TC meeting
The semantic and logic levels constitute the core part of the LegalRuleML functionality. They define the principles of design, the architecture of the syntax, the main elements for managing patterns, abstract types, groups of attributes, general classes, ontology-level connections, and rule-level connections.
Maintenance: Once the TC has completed work on a deliverable that has become an OASIS Standard, the TC will enter "maintenance mode" for the deliverable. The purpose of maintenance mode is to provide minor revisions to previously adopted deliverables to clarify ambiguities, inconsistencies, and obvious errors. Maintenance mode is not intended to enhance a deliverable or to extend its functionality.
The TC will collect issues raised against the deliverables and periodically process those issues. Issues that request or require new or enhanced functionality shall be marked as enhancement requests and set aside. Issues that result in the clarification or correction of the deliverables shall be processed. The TC shall maintain a list of these adopted clarifications and shall periodically create a new minor revision of the deliverables including these updates. Periodically, but at least once a year, the TC shall produce and vote upon a new minor revision of the deliverables.
1.e IPR Model
1.f Anticipated Audience
1. Vendors and service providers offering products and/or services in the legal domain (e.g. eGovernment, cloud computing SLAs, contracting, and legislation)
2.b The date, time, and location of the first meeting:
2.c The projected on-going meeting schedule for the year:
2.d The names, electronic mail addresses, and membership affiliations of at least Minimum Membership who support this proposal:
1. Monica Palmirani, email@example.com, CIRSFID, University of Bologna, Italy
2.e Primary Representative Approval Statements:
Monica Palmirani, firstname.lastname@example.org, CIRSFID, University of Bologna, Italy
Guido Governatori, email@example.com, NICTA, Queensland Laboratory, Australia, and RuleML director
Joseph Wheeler, firstname.lastname@example.org, MTG Management Consultants LLC
2.g. Member Section:
2.h Optional list of anticipated contributions:
Primary: +1 973-378-3472
--------------------------------------------------------------------- This email list is used solely by OASIS for official consortium communications. Opt-out requests may be sent to email@example.com, however, all members are strongly encouraged to maintain a subscription to this list.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]