LegalRuleML

Monica Palmirani, CIRSFID, University of Bologna

Guido Governatori, NICTA, Australia

Outline

Why LegalRuleML Goal of LegalRuleML Objectives of LegalRuleML Some Scenarios of LegalRuleML Draft Syntax of LegalRuleML

Why: Needs

Legal texts are the source of norms, guidelines and rules that often feed into different concrete Web applications.

Legislative documents typically provide general norms and specific procedural rules for eGovernment and eCommerce environments

Contracts specify the conditions of services and business rules

Judgements provide information about arguments and interpretation of norms that establish concrete case-law

Guidelines (Soft Law) provide business and process rules in different sector eGovernment, eJustice, eLegislation, eLaw eHealth Banks, assurances, credit card organizations Cloud Computing eCommerce

Goal

The goal of the LegalRuleML is to extend RuleML with features specific to the formalisation of norms, guidelines, and legal reasoning.

The ability to have proper and expressive conceptual models of the various and multifaceted aspects of norms, guidelines and in general legal knowledge is a key factor for the development and deployment of successful applications.

Managing in agile way several important functionalities of the legal domain in order to assign a specific semantic for avoiding to use too much generic RuleML elements

Objective Extend RuleML Standard for managing in agile way:

Legal Temporal dimensions Legal Deontic operators (and normative behaviours) Legal Defeasibility

This permits: capture the changes over time of the rules express the temporal parameters of the rules as attribute fill the gap between the text and the rules open the door for an effective legal reasoning approach

combining defesibility/behaviours and temporal dimensions

[Palmirani, Governatori, Contissa: RuleML 2009]

[Gordon T. F., Guido Governatori, Antonino Rotolo: RuleML 2009]

[Palmirani, Governatori, Contissa: ICAIL2011]

[Palmirani, et. al.: RuleML2011]

XMLRep.

KB

XPathXquery

4

LegalRules@

t2

LegalText

in XML@t2

Scenario

Ontology Engine Legal

Resoner

Facts tj

ProofNew

knowledge

5

KBtj

NORMS&

Adm.Acts

Jurisprudence

Case-Law

1

Legal OntologyConcepts

LegalRules@original

LegalText

in XML@original

AKOMA NTOSO ofLEGALDOCML

iso

mo

rph

ism

2

LegalRules@

t1

LegalText

in XML@t1

Mod art. 23

Detect the impacts of the modifications on the rules

3

RDF/a or RDF Linked Data

enrichment of the XML or HTML5 annotation

6

Public Procurement Law: check compliance

TED - http://ted.europa.eu/TED/main/HomePage.do Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC Check compliance between:

EU directive and the tender The tender and the contract The contract and the EU directive

Article 17 Service concessionsWithout prejudice to the application of Article 3, this

Directive shall not apply to service concessions as defined in Article 1(4).

R1: apply(2004/17/EC)R2: service concessionsnot apply(2004/17/EC) and

apply (art.3)R2>R1

Copyright law: violation and sanction

US “Digital Millenium Act” and modifications goal: in tx calculate the proper statutory damage in case

of violation of the copyright taking in consideration all the exceptions and the modifications respect an fact.

17 USC Sec. 504Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

Interval of efficacy of the norm

Statutory Damages

[1976-10-19, 1995-03-01[ $250 <= statutoryDamages <= $10,000

[1995-03-01, 2001-02-01[ $500 <= statutoryDamages <= $20,000

[ 2001-02-01, ∞ $750 <= statutoryDamages <= $30,000

(c) Statutory Damages. - (1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright

owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $250 or more than $10,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $50,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court it its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $100. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work. So in original. Probably should be ''in''.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504

Version 1

Unconstitutionality: German Federal Constitutional Court

German Federal Telecommunications Act, 22 June 2004

http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisions/2012/2

BVerfG, No. 1 BvR 1299/05, 2/24/12 http://www.bfdi.bund.de/cae/servlet/contentb

lob/411286/publicationFile/25386/TelecommunicationsAct-TKG.pdf

Section 113 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 is annulled.

“The Court requested the Federal Government to revise of the present provisions of the German Federal Telecommunications Act by 30 June 2013. “

Annulement from the Constitutional Court Ex-tunc effect of the norm39/2008, Pubblicazione in G. U. 05/03/2008LA CORTE COSTITUZIONALE dichiara l'illegittimità costituzionale degli articoli 50 e

142 del regio decreto 16 marzo 1942, n. 267 (Disciplina del fallimento, del concordato preventivo, dell'amministrazione controllata e della liquidazione coatta amministrativa), nel testo anteriore all'entrata in vigore del decreto legislativo 9 gennaio 2006, n. 5 (Riforma organica della disciplina delle procedure concorsuali a norma dell'articolo 1, comma 5, della legge 14 maggio 2005, n. 80), in quanto stabiliscono che le incapacità personali derivanti al fallito dalla dichiarazione di fallimento perdurano oltre la chiusura della procedura concorsuale.

Così deciso in Roma, nella sede della Corte costituzionale, Palazzo della Consulta, il 25 febbraio 2008.Retroactive annulment with the cessation of any

juridical effects produced by the law in retroactive way, but in an intermediary version in 2006.

Unconstitutionality – retroactive effects and different “possible worlds” in the same time

1942 2006 2008

Art. 50, 142annulled

Art. 50 – (repealed)Art. 142 – (inserted)

Art. 50, 142 annulled

V1 V2

W1

1942 2006 – it doesn’t exist in law

Art. 50, 142annulled

Art. 50 – (-----)Art. 142 – (-----)

V1

W2

Art. 50, 142 annulled

2008

1942

Art. 50, 142Public register of bankrupts

W3

V1 2006

Art. 50 – (repealed)Art. 142 – (inserted)

V2

Reasoning on temporal modifications: Terrorism Act, UK, 2006 Terrorism Act 2000,

28 days of detention for terrorism actions

2000-07-24

28 days of

detention2006-07-25

Terrorism Act 2006, sec. 25 modifies detention days from 28 to 14

14 days of

detention

14 daysof

detention

Order 2007 suspension of the sec. 25 for one year

2007-07-25

28 daysof

detention

2008-07-25 FACT in tj=2006-10-01 ?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2181/introduction/made

R1: if terrorism action than 28 days

R2: if terrorism action than 14 days

R3: R2 is suspended till 2008-07-25

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/contents

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents

Reasons of the extensionConnect text with the rules Respect the isomorphism principle -Bench-

Capon, Gordon, and Karpf - and implement the N:M relationships between text and rules

Granularity of the annotation, head, body, atoms

Reduce redundancy of predicates, references to textual sources, definitions of temporal events and intervals, and ontology concepts (TBox)

Filter the rules Author Authority Jurisdiction Other legal metadata

Reasons of the extension

Temporal management Define a temporal model specific for the legal domain:

time of in force, time of efficacy and time of application of the norms. Events and interval

Internal and external time of the norms Permit temporal parameters in each part of the rule:

antecedent, consequent, result of reasoning Retroactive time model

MetaRule reasoning MetaRule rasoning for the modifications of

modifications

Agile legal operators Temporal reasoning combined with

Legal Deontic operators Defeasible Logic

New elements in LegalRuleML

<metadata>

<references> textual sources info </references>

<events> temporal events list </events>

<timesInfo> legal temporal intervals</timesInfo>

<ruleInfo> metadata on the rules or part of the rule: atom, body, head</ruleInfo>

</metadata>

Connection between rules and text

<RuleML xmlns="http://ruleml.org/spec" xmlns:dfs="&dfs;" xmlns:xsi="&xs;-instance" xmlns:xs="&xs;" xmlns:legalruleml="&legalruleml;" xmlns:dc="&dc;" xmlns:dcterms="&dcterms;" xml:base="http://example.org/ACT40/2012/05/10/text.lrml"> <Assert> <metadata xmlns="http://legalruleml.example.org"> <references id="referenceBlock1">

<reference id="sec25_2006" iri=http://act2006#sec25 refType="/ontology/legalText />

<reference id="sec2_2007" iri="http://act2007#sec2"/><reference id="sche8_2000" iri="http://act2000#sche8"/><reference id="sec128_2000"

iri="http://act2000#sec128"/></references>

UniqueIRI

Events and Legal temporal parameters

<events><!– Order 2007 events --><event id="e1" value="2007-07-24T01:01:00.0Z"/><event id="e2" value="2007-07-25T01:01:00.0Z"/>

<!– Terrorism Act 2006 events --><event id="e3" value="2006-03-30T01:01:00.0Z"/>

<event id="e4" value="2006-07-17T01:01:00.0Z"/> <event id="e5" value="2006-07-25T01:01:00.0Z"/>

<!– Terrorism Act events --><event id="e6" value="2000-07-20T01:01:00.0Z"/><event id="e7" value="2001-02-15T01:01:00.0Z"/>

<event id="e8" value="2001-02-19T01:01:00.0Z"/> <!– Creation Time --> <event id="e9" value="2012-05-25T01:01:00.0Z"/>

</events>

Events and Legal temporal parameters

<timesInfo><!-- order2007 --><times id=“t1">

<time start=“#e2" timeType=“efficacy"/><time start="#e2" duration="P01Y“

timeType=“applicability"/></times>

</timesInfo>

Rules information: type of rule, author, jurdisdiction, temporal parameters

<ruleInfo id="ruleInfo1" applysTo="#sec2-rule1"> <sources id="sourceBlock1"> <source param=“sec2-rule1-body" idref="#sec2_2007"/> <source param=“sec2-rule1-head " idref="#sec25_2006"/> </sources>

< timesBlock idref=“#t1"/> <capability iri="&dfs;defeasible"/> <author idref="#aut1"/>

<jurisdiction idref=“#UK"/> <creationDateTime idref=" # e9"/> </ruleInfo>

strictdefeasibledefeater

meta-rule

Rule<Rulebase node="#art1" mapClosure="universal">

<Implies material="no" node="#sec2-rule1"> <if node=“#sec2-rule1-body”>

<Atom> <Rel iri="&legalruleml;efficacy"/> <Var>sec2_2007</Var> </Atom>

</if><!—- Disapplication sect. 25 of the Terrorism act 2006 -->

<then timesBlock="#t1c“node=“#sec2-rule1-head”> <Atom>

<Rel iri="&legalruleml;suspend"/> <Var> sec25_2006 </Var>

</Atom></then>

</Implies >

Efficacy of the modification

[25-07-2007, [

Application range – [2007, 2008]

Defeasibility logic: hierarchy relation

<Overrides>

<Expr>

<Fun iri="#sec2-rule1"/>

<Var>Z</Var>

</Expr>

<Expr>

<Fun iri="#sec25-rule1"/>

<Var>Z</Var>

</Expr>

</Overrides>

Deontic & Behavior operators Deontic operators added as new operators in

Wff Behavior operators: as sequence of

obligations or prohibition and ending with eventually a permission

Penalty is a particular type of behavior Violation Reparation

Deontic operators

Behavior operators

Behavior operators: as sequence of obligations or prohibition and ending with eventually a permission

Penalty is a particular type of behavior

Violation and Reparation

Connection Operation: violation reparation apply the

penalty

Penality

<Atom id="axm1"><penalty id="pnl1">

<obligation id="obl1" subject="student“ beneficiary="all" timesBlock="#t2">

<Rel id="s1" pred="pay1000fine">Pay 1000$</Rel><Var>x</Var>

</obligation></penalty>

</ Atom >

Violation and riparation <Rulebase node="#art1" mapClosure="universal">

<Implies id="rule1"><if>

<violation source="#rule2"/></if><then>

<reparation id="rpr1" penalty="#pnl1"/></then>

</rule><Implies id="rule2">

<if><Rel id="s3" pred="isStudent“/><Var>x</Var>

</if><then>

<prohibition id="prh1"><Rel id="s2" pred="smoke“/><Var>x</Var>

</prohibition></then>

</rule>

Conclusion relationship between rules and text - N:M cardinality multi interpretation of the same rules without redundancy independent events by their semantic and connectable

with external ontology events capture internal and external times of the norms rule, head, body, sentences are labelled with separate

temporal parameters granularity of temporal parameter since the words defeasible rules are sensitive to the dynamicity and they

could be manifold annotated deontic and behavior operators could be directly

expressed and enriched as well with the temporal parameters

meta-rules permits to cut the high-order logic approach (e.s. modification of modification)

retroactive temporal reasoning is possible (e.g. annulment of a norms in the past)

reasoner faces the temporal reasoning on the rules with polynomial complexity

Thank you for your attention!monica.palmirani@unibo.it