LegalRuleML Technical Meeting
Informal Minutes August 12th 2014
Time
LegalRuleML TC meeting – August 12th 2014
10,00pm CET
6,00am Australia
4,00pm EDT
13,00pm PDT
Participants
Affiliation / Name / RoleIndividual / Tara Athan / Voting Member
NICTA / Guido Governatori / Chair
University of Bologna-CIRSFID / Monica Palmirani / Chair
University of Aberdeen / Adam Wyner / Voting Member
Agenda
1. Approval of the Minutes of the previous meetings2. Documentation D1: WS05 draft
3. Other business: LegalRuleML tutorial in the RuleML Symposium 2014 - draft slides
4. Adjournment
Monica opened the LegaRuleML TC meeting in time. In total 23 people members. Only 5 people have the voting right. Monica checks who is present: 4 people are in the call and 4 of that have right vote. Each participant registered the attendance into the OASIS Kavi system. So the TC reaches the quorum.
Minutes of the previous TC Meeting
None
LegalRuleML Tutorial material
The TC continues to work on the material to present in the LegalRuleML Tutorial in the RuleML2014 Symposium. The TC discusses on the use of glossary, how to emphasize the definitions, how to provide examples in plain text, how to use the example, how to present “aternatives”.
In particular the TC evaluates again the relationship “reparation” respect the “violation” and “penalty”.
Other business
None.
Adjournment
The conference finished at 5.52 pm EDT and it was adjourned with this agenda:
· Documentation
The next meeting will be held August 18th 2014 in Skype,
10,00pm CEST
6,00am Australia
4,00pm EDT
12,30pm PDT
Annex from the Skype conference call August 12th 2014
[12/08/2014 21:58:29] Monica Palmirani: EVENT LINK in KAVI for recording the attendance: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalruleml/event.php?event_id=38190
[12/08/2014 22:00:52] Adam Wyner: Done.
[12/08/2014 22:02:37 | Edited 22:02:41] Monica Palmirani: I am coming one moment
[12/08/2014 22:09:27] Monica Palmirani: ok I have sent the slides (draft version) of the tutorial.
[12/08/2014 22:09:40] Monica Palmirani: Guido do you have a good connection?
[12/08/2014 22:10:07] *** Group call ***
[12/08/2014 22:10:22] Adam Wyner: Hi.
[12/08/2014 22:11:24] Monica Palmirani: I suggest to start to the slides
[12/08/2014 22:11:49] Adam Wyner: I can hear again.
[12/08/2014 22:12:43] Adam Wyner: I don't see the slides.
[12/08/2014 22:12:51] Monica Palmirani: did you receive them?
[12/08/2014 22:12:56] Monica Palmirani: by email
[12/08/2014 22:13:01] Adam Wyner: I only seem to have draft material from previous presentations.
[12/08/2014 22:13:25] Monica Palmirani: we have modified several slides:
[12/08/2014 22:13:40] Monica Palmirani: n. 11 - we have included alternatives
[12/08/2014 22:13:48] Adam Wyner: Ok, now have the slides.
[12/08/2014 22:13:52] Monica Palmirani: n. 12 - we have included alternatives
[12/08/2014 22:14:09] Monica Palmirani: n. 20 - use the glossary definitions
[12/08/2014 22:14:16] Monica Palmirani: n. 21 - use the glossary definitions
[12/08/2014 22:14:48] Adam Wyner: Looking at the slides. But, the connection seems to be weak. So far I've not had any problem with my connection.
[12/08/2014 22:14:48] Guido Governatori: lost voice connection
[12/08/2014 22:15:11] Monica Palmirani: now I have change type of connection
[12/08/2014 22:15:20] Adam Wyner: I should send an updated picture. And Tara needs a new picture!
[12/08/2014 22:15:41] Adam Wyner: But not necessary.
[12/08/2014 22:15:48] Monica Palmirani: example is pending
[12/08/2014 22:16:06] *** Call ended, duration 01:07 ***
[12/08/2014 22:16:09] *** Group call ***
[12/08/2014 22:16:21] Adam Wyner: How do you want to make edits?
[12/08/2014 22:16:45] Adam Wyner: slide 4: domainm -> domain
[12/08/2014 22:18:18] Adam Wyner: Slide 6 seems unclear about the relationship of RuleML with LegalRuleML. Also, arrows in the wrong direction?
[12/08/2014 22:18:52] Adam Wyner: Slide 7: obbligation -> obligation
[12/08/2014 22:18:52] Tara Athan: The outline does not appear to reflect the complete content of the talk.
[12/08/2014 22:20:15] Monica Palmirani: Rules as interpretation of the text
Multiple interpretations of the same text
[12/08/2014 22:20:40] Monica Palmirani: Context
association of alternative interpretations of the same text
[12/08/2014 22:22:28] Monica Palmirani: n. 18
[12/08/2014 22:23:16] Adam Wyner: I like n. 13.
[12/08/2014 22:23:53] Monica Palmirani: Deontic operators
[12/08/2014 22:24:31] Monica Palmirani: Obligation +:
[12/08/2014 22:24:48] Monica Palmirani: the Bearer
[12/08/2014 22:24:52] Adam Wyner: On n. 15, there will be commentary about having URI and non-URI, which is (as I recall) web/external and document/internal reference? Correct?
[12/08/2014 22:26:42 | Edited 22:29:50] Adam Wyner: And highlight “is not achieved” and “Violation” too.
[12/08/2014 22:27:20] Adam Wyner: Obligation, Prohibition, Permission, Right
[12/08/2014 22:28:03] Adam Wyner: Right is more complex than permission because of the other parties.
[12/08/2014 22:30:10] Adam Wyner: For Prohibition, highlight “is achieved” and “Violation” too.
[12/08/2014 22:30:19] Monica Palmirani: ok violation too.
[12/08/2014 22:30:46] Adam Wyner: Perhaps this permission could be simplified without the weak and strong difference?
[12/08/2014 22:30:55] Adam Wyner: for the purposes of the presentation.
[12/08/2014 22:31:03] Monica Palmirani: for me is ok
[12/08/2014 22:34:44] Adam Wyner: Mmmm, looking at these definitions for obligation and permission, did we leave out obligations/prohibitions on states, which are not 'achieved' or 'performed', e.g. obligated to keep the yard clean?
[12/08/2014 22:35:14] Adam Wyner: Not that we should make any changes for the presentation.
[12/08/2014 22:36:01] Tara Athan: Adam - you are not permitted to question the definitions at this time.
[12/08/2014 22:36:32] Adam Wyner: Sorry, you are right. I should have stated that as an observation, not a question.
[12/08/2014 22:36:52] Adam Wyner: Looking at these definitions for obligation and permission, did we leave out obligations/prohibitions on states, which are not 'achieved' or 'performed', e.g. obligated to keep the yard clean.
[12/08/2014 22:37:17] Adam Wyner: Nice try Guido, but I'd not say that is an achievement.
[12/08/2014 22:37:19] Guido Governatori: continuously achieve the state where the yard is kept clean
[12/08/2014 22:37:32] Guido Governatori: it is a maintenance obligation
[12/08/2014 22:37:50] Adam Wyner: I agree it is a maintenance obligation, but not that it is an achievement.
[12/08/2014 22:38:04] Adam Wyner: But, we can toss this matter around after the slides are done.
[12/08/2014 22:38:50] Adam Wyner: Yeah! Fight! Fight! Fight!
[12/08/2014 22:39:19] Monica Palmirani: n. 21
[12/08/2014 22:39:39] Monica Palmirani: er
[12/08/2014 22:39:44] Monica Palmirani: ER diagram
[12/08/2014 22:39:48] Monica Palmirani: entity-relationship
[12/08/2014 22:40:09] Adam Wyner: I'm having a hard time with n 21. Simpler? Short example?
[12/08/2014 22:40:59] Monica Palmirani: I agree with Tara
[12/08/2014 22:41:10] Monica Palmirani: we can add something
[12/08/2014 22:41:55] Monica Palmirani: I can add a new box
[12/08/2014 22:42:33] Guido Governatori: An indication that a penalty compensates a violation
[12/08/2014 22:43:18] Adam Wyner: Mmm, I'll go along with this, but we had similar previous discussions about the ambiguity/redundancy of 'violation' and 'penalty'.
[12/08/2014 22:43:36] Guido Governatori: Penalty and Violation :)
[12/08/2014 22:44:40] Adam Wyner: Or is there some other meaning to violation, e.g. simply that an obligation/penalty has been violated, but then this is linked to a penalty? I've lost the thread on this.
[12/08/2014 22:45:22] Tara Athan: Examples - there were several definitions where we left placeholders in the Glossary for examples to be written.
[12/08/2014 22:46:33] Monica Palmirani: n. 23 24
[12/08/2014 22:47:33] Monica Palmirani: Civil penalty: 2,000 penalty units.
[12/08/2014 22:47:38] Monica Palmirani: Criminal penalty: 200 penalty units, or 2 years imprisonment, or both.
[12/08/2014 22:48:11] Monica Palmirani: rep1: [Violation]ps1, pen1
[12/08/2014 22:48:23] Adam Wyner: @Tara - some of the terminology has to be inferred from context and the structure of the document.
[12/08/2014 22:50:14] Guido Governatori: A violation is repaired by a penalty
[12/08/2014 22:50:31 | Edited 22:50:45] Monica Palmirani: A reparation is a relationship between a penalty that compensates a violation of an obligation
[12/08/2014 22:50:31] Guido Governatori: A penalty repairs a violation
[12/08/2014 22:50:33] Adam Wyner: I think a comment has to be made before the example that some of the information in the language is implicit in the text. For instance, obligation, penalty, reparation...
[12/08/2014 22:51:00] Monica Palmirani: [martedì 12 agosto 2014 22:50] Monica Palmirani:
< A reparation is a relationship between a penalty that compensates a violation of an obligation
[12/08/2014 22:51:25] Adam Wyner: Nay - I disagree. The paraphrase element is not for introducing such information, but for alternative statements of a given text that has the same meaning…..
[12/08/2014 22:51:51 | Edited 22:53:12] Tara Athan: A penalty of xxx units is a reparation for a violation of ...
That is what I would expect to see in a Paraphrase element of a Reparation Statement.
[12/08/2014 22:52:28] Adam Wyner: A penalty of xxx units is a reparation for a violation of ....
[12/08/2014 22:52:33] Guido Governatori: A penalty of 200 criminal unity is a reparation for engaging in a credit activity without a financial licence
[12/08/2014 22:52:36] Adam Wyner: We have no 'repair' terminology.
[12/08/2014 22:54:29] Monica Palmirani: I suggest a slides with: text and this "transation"
[12/08/2014 22:54:49] Monica Palmirani: Civil penalty: 2,000 penalty units.
[12/08/2014 22:55:11] Monica Palmirani: [martedì 12 agosto 2014 22:52] Guido Governatori:
< A penalty of 200 criminal unity is a reparation for engaging in a credit activity without a financial licence
[12/08/2014 22:55:26] Monica Palmirani: National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009:
Section 29
(Prohibition on engaging in credit activities without a licence)
(1) A person must not engage in a credit activity if the person does not hold a licence authorising the person to engage in the credit activity.
Civil penalty: 2,000 penalty units.
omissis
Criminal penalty: 200 penalty units, or 2 years imprisonment, or both.
[12/08/2014 22:56:35 | Edited 22:57:05] Guido Governatori: A penalty of 200 criminal unit is a reparation for the prohibition of engaging in a credit activity without a financial lincence when one engaged in such an activity without a valid financial licence at the time of the engagement
[12/08/2014 22:57:35] Monica Palmirani: very complex for a non legal people
[12/08/2014 22:58:05] Adam Wyner: ...is a reparation for violating the prohibition….
[12/08/2014 22:58:49] Adam Wyner: But, not complicated enough for people who are legislators!
[12/08/2014 22:58:58] Guido Governatori: (flex)
[12/08/2014 22:59:09] Monica Palmirani: yes for sure for the legislators
[12/08/2014 22:59:12] Monica Palmirani: So
[12/08/2014 22:59:33] Guido Governatori: A penalty of 200 criminal unit is a reparation for violating the prohibition of engaging in a credit activity without a financial lincence
[12/08/2014 22:59:58 | Edited 23:00:02] Monica Palmirani: can you modify it for making simpler?
[12/08/2014 23:00:50] Monica Palmirani: licence
[12/08/2014 23:00:52] Adam Wyner: A penalty of 200 criminal unit is a reparation for violating the prohibition on engaging in a credit activity without a financial license.
[12/08/2014 23:01:49] Monica Palmirani: where? instead of the original text? or in addition
[12/08/2014 23:01:56] Guido Governatori: in addition
[12/08/2014 23:02:12] Monica Palmirani: in which slide? 23?
[12/08/2014 23:02:19] Monica Palmirani: or 21?
[12/08/2014 23:02:30] Guido Governatori: in 21
[12/08/2014 23:03:59] Monica Palmirani: I can put in the WD06
[12/08/2014 23:04:06] Monica Palmirani: close to the reparation definition
[12/08/2014 23:04:16] Guido Governatori: ok
[12/08/2014 23:04:23] Monica Palmirani: so 22 slide
[12/08/2014 23:05:05] Guido Governatori: body ~> head
[12/08/2014 23:05:11] Guido Governatori: defeater
[12/08/2014 23:07:49] Adam Wyner: put the expressions like "body ~> head" in another colour, e.g. blue?
[12/08/2014 23:08:00] Monica Palmirani: ok adam
[12/08/2014 23:09:40] Adam Wyner: Something I don't understand about n 23. There is R1 (a statement) and R2 (a statement), but there seems not to be a rule that has the antecedent (R2) and consequent (R1)?
[12/08/2014 23:10:36] Monica Palmirani: to put n. 23 before the 21
[12/08/2014 23:10:47 | Edited 23:12:10] Tara Athan: Move slide 23 before slide 20.
Add additional natural language statements following definitions. E.g. for deontic operators...
[12/08/2014 23:10:52] Monica Palmirani: yes
[12/08/2014 23:11:24] Adam Wyner: 23 before 20, yes.
[12/08/2014 23:12:15] Adam Wyner: And without the highlighting first, then with highlighting? That is, we have a passage to represent, then how it is represented.
[12/08/2014 23:12:57] Monica Palmirani: yes plain text and later with the blocks in color
[12/08/2014 23:13:44 | Edited 23:18:03] Tara Athan: "A person must not engage in a credit activity" :
It is prohibited for a person to engage in a credit activity.
ps1: Person(x) => [FORB]EngageCreditActivity(x)
[12/08/2014 23:16:05] Monica Palmirani: the scope of the law is addressed to legal persons.
[12/08/2014 23:18:17] Adam Wyner: No, wait. I want kangaroos! Did we vote on this yet?
[12/08/2014 23:19:36] Adam Wyner: I would not want us to get into a discussion about the surface form of sentences, paraphrases, and the syntactic representation in LegalRuleML. That sort of relation has not be part of our discussions to this point (IMHO).
[12/08/2014 23:19:47] Monica Palmirani: can we paraphrase this "
A person must not engage in a credit activity if the person does not hold a licence authorising the person to engage in the credit activity
"
[12/08/2014 23:19:52] Monica Palmirani: +1 for Adam
[12/08/2014 23:20:19 | Edited 23:20:32] Tara Athan: The whole point is to clarify the definition of the terminology. If you don't use the term in a sentence, then it is not helpful.
[12/08/2014 23:20:27 | Edited 23:21:46] Monica Palmirani: R1 A person must not engage in a credit activity.
R2 But if the person hold a licence authorising the person can engage in the credit activity.
[12/08/2014 23:20:32] Guido Governatori: +1 for kangaroos?
[12/08/2014 23:22:02] Adam Wyner: Using the general concepts is one thing (and OK for me), but that is different from saying something about the sentence-LegalRuleML syntax relation.
[12/08/2014 23:22:03 | Edited 23:23:03] Tara Athan: "A person must not engage in a credit activity" is a prescriptive statement of a prohibition.
[12/08/2014 23:22:28] Adam Wyner: OK for me. Classifying a statement.
[12/08/2014 23:22:31] Monica Palmirani: yes
[12/08/2014 23:23:16] Adam Wyner: Right. Is there a reason we are going in this direction for the discussion for the slides? I'm losing a thread.
[12/08/2014 23:23:46 | Edited 23:24:14] Tara Athan: Because there is a disconnect between the definitions and the example.
[12/08/2014 23:24:46] Monica Palmirani: Prohibition +: a Deontic Specification for a state, an act, or a course of action to which a Bearer is legally bound, and if it is achieved or performed results in a Violation.
[12/08/2014 23:25:58] Adam Wyner: I agree, but I don't think that can be addressed now. I think you are raising a very relevant, important, and general issue - how to bridge from NL to the formal representation. What you have done is introduce such a 'bridging' language. But, that has not been (SFAIU) part of our discussions….yet….so not necessary for *this* presentation.