1.1.Norms, Provisions, Legal Rules

Technical Note: 2.8isomorphism.002001

Author: Monica Palmirani, Adrian Paschke

Date: June 29thApril 30, 2012

Contributors:

1.Isomorphism

1.1.Norms, Provisions, Legal Rules

Norm: Following to the Kelsen (Kelsen,Hans, Reine Rechtslehre, 2d. ed., Wien 1992 [1960]) definition a norm is an abstract mandatory command concerning rights or duties.The norm usually is expressedin written using legal text or in oral way (e.g. social norm, oral contract) or in other representations (e.g. picture like road signs).

Textual Provision: We concentrate our attention on the normsrepresented using legal text form.The text that expresses one or more norms is called textualprovision or simply provision.

Legal Rules: Legal rules are a logic model and representation of the norms using antecedents and consequents for representing duties, obligations, permissions, constitutional rules, etc.

A provision can includes different norms or a norm could be expressed by different provisions.The relationship between norms and provisions is N:M association.

Atom -– connectedTo-- provision(s)

Body -– connectedTo-- provision(s)

Head -– connectedTo-- provision(s)

Rule -– connectedTo-- provision(s)

1a / R1:if A_1(art1), A_2(art5), A_3 (art7)...,A_n (art15) then B (art23)
The pre-conditions are connected to different provision
Atom -– connectedTo-- provision
2a / R2:if (A_1, A_2, A_3,...A_n (art4)) then (B (art28))
R3:if (A_1, A_2,...A_n (art4)) then (C (art29))
The body is connected with the provisions
Different body are connected with the same provision (art4)
Body-– connectedTo-- provision
Head-– connectedTo-- provision
3a / R4:((if A_1, A_2, A_3,...,A_n then B)(art4, art7, art15))
The enter rule is connected with different provisions
Rule-– connectedTo-- provision
4a / R5:(if A_1, A_2, A_3,...,A_n then B)(art4)
R6:(if A_1, A_2, A_3,...,A_n then B)(art4)
Different rules are connected with different provision

1.2.Isomorphism

The isomorphism (Bench-Capon T. and Coenen F.: Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1(1):65–86, 1992) is the concept to associate any rule to its provision(s) in order:

1) to have a relationship between rule(s) and legal provision(s) that originated it/them;

2) to have a clear explanation, supported by the original legal text, to provide to the end user as outcome of the legal reasoning process (demonstration). The original legal provision is the only legal binding text;

3) to help the maintenance of the rules knowledge base when the text changes (change management).

Following the above goal, we associate the rules with the legal provisions using URI. Each legal provision has an URI that is annotate in the LegalRuleML XML file once.

0b / References
URIAct1#art1-->ID1
URIAct1#art4-->ID2
URIAct1#art5-->ID3
URIAct1#art7-->ID4
URIAct2#art15-->ID5
URIAct2#art23-->ID6
URIAct2#art27-->ID7
URIAct2#art28-->ID8
URIAct2#art29-->ID9
1b / R1:if A_1(#ID1), A_2(#ID3), A_3 (#ID4)...,A_n (#ID5) then B (#ID6)
The pre-conditions are connected to different provision
Atom -– connectedTo-- provision
2b / R2:if (A_1, A_2, A_3,...A_n (#ID2)) then (B (#ID8))
R3:if (A_1, A_2,...A_n (#ID2)) then (C (#ID9))
The body is connected with the provisions
Different body are connected with the same provision (art4)
Body-– connectedTo-- provision
Head-– connectedTo-- provision
3b / R4:((if A_1, A_2, A_3,...,A_n then B)(#ID2, #ID4, #ID5))
The enter rule is connected with different provisions
Rule-– connectedTo-- provision
4b / R5:(if A_1, A_2, A_3,...,A_n then B)(#ID2)
R6:(if A_1, A_2, A_3,...,A_n then B)(#ID2)
Different rules are connected with different provision

This annotation has three important advantages:

a)the provisions are not duplicated in their URI inside of the rules;

b)in case of errors in the URI, we modify only in one place (source block) this information;

c)in case of modification of one article (e.g. article 4) it is immediate the possibility to detect all the rules involved in.

1.3.Legal provisions and rules over time

Another requirement in the legal domain is the multiple association between the source(s) and the rule(s) due to adifferent version of the text provision over the time(changes of the law) or to a different interpretation by different authors.

Suppose the following rule, where art1, art5, art7 and art15 belong to the ACT1 and the consequence (head B) belong to the art. 23 of the ACT2.

R1:if A_1(art1), A_2(art5), A_3 (art7) and A_4 (art15) then B (art23)

“Anyone who violates Art. 1 and Art. 5 and Art. 7 and Art. 15 of the ACT 20 shall be punishedfollowing the Art. 23 in the Act 30”

Now we suppose that the Art. 23 is modified and the provision source changed in 2011-12-20.

The modification is the substitution of Art. 23 from “not less of 3 years of prison” to “not less of 5 years of prison”. The rule1 don’t change but the legal provision connected with the head is modified.

In this way we can modify only the URIAct2#art23 adding the information related the qualification of the version (URIAct2@2011-12-20) (FRBR naming convention of the Work, Expression, Manifestation, Item). All the other part of the rule don’t need modifications because based on ID mechanism.

0b / References
URIAct1#art1-->ID1
URIAct1#art4-->ID2
URIAct1#art5-->ID3
URIAct1#art7-->ID4
URIAct2#art15-->ID5
URIAct2@2011-12-20#art23-->ID6
1c / R1:if A_1(#ID1), A_2(#ID3), A_3 (#ID4)...,A_n (#ID5) then B (#ID6)

1.4.Multiple interpretations of rules

Suppose to have a new scenario where two legal experts have a different opinion on the legal provision resources connected with a rule. It is the case of different judges opinions or it is the case of a different interpretation over the time (time1 and time2).

In time1 the author1 interprets the provision
“Anyone who violates Art. 1 and Art. 5 and Art. 7 and Art. 15 of the ACT 20 shall be punished following the Art. 23 in the Act 30” with:

(R1, Author1, Time1):if A_1(art1), A_2(art5), A_3 (art7),A_4 (art15) then B (art23)

In time2 the author2 interprets the provision
“Anyone who violates Art. 1 and Art. 5 and Art. 7 and Art. 15 of the ACT 20 shall be punished following the Art. 27 in the Act 30” with:

(R1, Author2, Time2): if A_1(art4), A_2(art5), A_3 (art7),,A_4 (art15) then B (art27)

0b / Sources
URIAct1#art1-->ID1
URIAct1#art4-->ID2
URIAct1#art5-->ID3
URIAct1#art7-->ID4
URIAct2#art15-->ID5
URIAct2@2011-12-20#art23-->ID6
URIAct2#art27-->ID7
RuleInfo1
R1, Author1, time1,(#A_1,#ID1), (#A_2, #ID3), (#A_3, #ID4), (#A_4, #ID5), (#B, #ID6)
RuleInfo2
R1, Author2, time2,(#A_1,#ID2), (#A_2, #ID3), (#A_3, #ID4), (#A_4, #ID5), (#B, #ID7)
1c / (R1):if A_1, A_2, A_3...,A_n then B

1.5.XML Representation

</meta>

<reference keyid="ID1" iriuri="

<reference keyid="ID2" iriuri="

<reference keyid="ID3" iriuri="

<reference keyid="ID4" iriuri="

<reference keyid="ID5" iriuri="

<reference keyid="ID6" iriuri="

<reference keyid="ID7" iriuri="

<reference keyid="ID8" iriuri="

<reference keyid="ID9" iriuri="

<reference keyid="ID10" iriuri="

/references>

Note: the last reference is related to a judgement not a legal text. This for showing the possibility to link also judgement, jurisprudence, contract or any other legal textual source.

<ruleInfo node=”ruleInfo1”keyref=”#refersTo=”rule1”

<meta>

<And>

<Atom>

<op<Rel iri="dc:creator"/</op>

</arg>

</Atom>

<Atom>

<op<Rel iri="dc:date"/</op>

</arg>

</Atom>

</And>

</meta>

<And>

<Profile type="ruleml;Defeasible" direction="backward" style=”reasoning”

<And>

<And>

</Profile>

</And>

</evaluation>

<scope>

<And

Source keysource element="#atom1" keyrefrefersTo="#ID1"/>

Source keysource element="#atom2" keyrefrefersTo="#ID3"/>

Source keysource element="#atom3" keyrefrefersTo="#ID4"/>

Source keysource element="#atom4" keyrefrefersTo="#ID5"/>

Source keysource element="#body2" keyrefrefersTo="#ID6"/>

</sources>

</And> <ruleType value="defeasible"

</scope>

</Rule>

<Rule key=”#ruleInfo2” keyref=”#rule1”

<meta>

<And>

<Atom>

<op<Rel iri="dc:creator"/</op>

</arg>

</Atom>

<Atom>

<op<Rel iri="dc:date"/</op>

</arg>

</Atom>

</And>

</meta>

<And>

<Profile type="ruleml;Defeasible" direction="backward" style=”reasoning”

<And>

<jurisdiction value=”europe”

refersTo="/ontology/europe.owl"/>

<authority value=”justice”

referstTo=”/ontology/ministyOfJustice.owl#justice”/>

<And>

</Profile>

</And>

</evaluation>

<scope>

<ruleInfo node=”ruleInfo2” refersTo=”rule1”

Source keysource element="#atom1" keyrefrefersTo="#ID2"/>

Source keysource element="#atom2" keyrefrefersTo="#ID3"/>

Source keysource element="#atom3" keyrefrefersTo="#ID4"/>

Source keysource element="#atom4" keyrefrefersTo="#ID5"/>

Source keysource element="#body2" keyrefrefersTo="#ID7"/>

</sources>

</And>

</scope>

</Rule>

<ruleType value="defeasible"

refersTo="/ontology/defeasible.owl"/>

<jurisdiction value=”europe”

refersTo="/ontology/europe.owl"/>

<authority value=”justice”

referstTo=”/ontology/ministyOfJustice.owl”/>

</ruleInfo>

Note: the block sources could be inserted inside of RuleruleInfo or outside in the scope of the <Rulebase> for permitting modularization.

</meta>

Note: it is possible to keyrefrefersTofrom the metadata to the rule in order to permit a multiple interpretation of the same rule

Rule key<Implies node="#rule1">

<if>

<And<and

</And</and

</if>

<then>

</then>

</Implies>

Note: it is also possible to keyrefrefersTo from the rule to the metadata for reusing the same information:

Rule key<Implies node="#rule3" keyrefrefersTo=”ruleInfo1”>

<if>

Andand

</Andand

</if>

<then>

</then>

</RuleImplies

1.6.Disclaimer

Currently, the XML syntax is under development, and the XML snippets abovemay not be representative of the final LegalRuleML Specifications.

AP: I have updated the XML syntax to be more compliant to the RuleML and Reaction RuleML syntax

2.References

Bench-Capon T. and Coenen F.: Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1(1):65–86, 1992
naming convention of the URI
Kelsen,Hans, Reine Rechtslehre, 2d. ed., Wien 1960.
Legislative XML for the Semantic Web. Principles, Models, Standards for Document Management, Sartor, Giovanni; Palmirani, Monica; Francesconi, Enrico; Biasiotti, Maria Angela, Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York, Springer, 2011, Law, Governance and Technology Series, Vol. 4.
PalmiraniMonica, Giuseppe Contissa, Rossella Rubino: Fill the Gap in the Legal Knowledge Modelling. RuleML 2009: pp. 305-314.