LegalRuleML LegalRuleML TC

Outline Why LegalRuleML Goal of LegalRuleML Objectives of LegalRuleML Some examples of LegalRuleML Meta model 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 normative 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] OTHER REFERENCES

Legal t2 Legal Scenario Legal Ontology Legal original Legal isomorphism Legal t1 Legal Legal Ontology Legal Ontology When the legal text change we want to detect the rules and the ontology classes affected by the changes When we get the outcome of the rule reasoning we would like to refer to the proper version of the text and of the ontology classes We would like to take in consideration the evolution of the rules over time with also all the metadata fixed in a due time tx

Complaint example from Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code C628:2012, Australia 2.1 Complaint means an expression of dissatisfaction made to a Supplier in relation to its Telecommunications Products or the complaints handling process itself, where a response or Resolution is explicitly or implicitly expected by the Consumer. An initial call to a provider to request a service or information or to request support is not necessarily a Complaint. An initial call to report a fault or service difficulty is not a Complaint. However, if a Customer advises that they want this initial call treated as a Complaint, the Supplier will also treat this initial call as a Complaint. If a Supplier is uncertain, a Supplier must ask a Customer if they wish to make a Complaint and must rely on the Customer ‟ s response. Date of Assent: 30 May 2012 Date of Registration: 11 July 2012 Date of Efficacy: 1 September 2012

Complaint example from TCP Code C628:2012, Australia Legalruleml metamodel

Meta Model: defeasibility

Meta Model: sources and references

Example: Terrorism Act In 2000 the UK delivered the Terrorism Act, In 2006 the UK delivered the Terrorism Act, 2006 that modified the detention period from 28 days to 14 days. <<25 Expiry or renewal of extended maximum detention period (a) as if in sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph, for “28 days” there were substituted “14 days”>> 3. In 2007 the UK suspended the sec. 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 for one year. “1. This Order may be cited as the Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2007 and shall come into force on 25th July Section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 is disapplied for a period of one year beginning with the coming into force of this Order.”

Example: Terrorism Act, UK, 2006 Terrorism Act 2000, 28 days of detention for terrorism actions days of detention Terrorism Act 2006, sec. 25 modifies detention days from 28 to days of detention 14 days of detention Order 2007 suspension of the sec. 25 for one year days of detention R1: IF terrorism action THEN 28 days R2: IF terrorism action THEN 14 days R3: R2 is suspended till

Copyright law: temporal versions US “Digital Millenium Act” and modifications goal: in t x 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. 504 Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits Interval of efficacy of the norm Statutory Damages [Jan. 1, 1978, March 1, 1989 [ $250 <= statutoryDamages <= $10,000 [March 1, 1989, Dec. 9, 1999 [$500 <= statutoryDamages <= $20,000 [Dec. 9, 1999, ∞ $750 <= statutoryDamages <= $30,000

(c) Statutory Damages. - The copyright owner may elect an award of statutory damages for infringements in a sum of not less than $250 or more than $10,000 as the court considers just. Version 1 [Jan. 1, 1978, March 1, 1989 [ (c) Statutory Damages. - The copyright owner may elect an award of statutory damages for infringements in a sum of not less than $500 or more than $20,000 as the court considers just. Version 2 [March 1, 1989, Dec. 9, 1999 [ (c) Statutory Damages. - The copyright owner may elect an award of statutory damages for infringements in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. Version 3 [Dec. 9, 1999, ∞

Rule pay a fee X not less than $250 not more than $10,000 infranges copyright X elect an award of statutory damages Y

Temporal Model

Preliminary XML Syntax

Thank you for your attention!