1. LegalRuleML Monica Palmirani, CIRSFID, University of Bologna Guido Governatori, NICTA, Australia

2. Outline Why LegalRuleML Goal of LegalRuleML Objectives of LegalRuleML Some Scenarios of LegalRuleML Draft Syntax of LegalRuleML

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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]

6. XML Rep. KB XPath Xquery 4 Legal Rules@ t2 Legal Text in XML @t2 Scenario Ontology Engine Legal Resoner Facts tj Proof New knowledge 5 KBtj NORMS & Adm.Acts Jurispru dence Case-Law 1 Legal Ontology Concepts Legal Rules@ original Legal Text in XML @original AKOMA NTOSO of LEGALDOCML isomorphism 2 Legal Rules@ t1 Legal Text 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

7. Public Procurement Law: check compliance TED - http://ted.europa.eu/TED/main/HomePage.dohttp://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 concessions Without 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 concessions  not apply(2004/17/EC) and apply (art.3) R2>R1

8. Copyright law: violation and sanction 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 [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

9. (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

10. Unconstitutionality: German Federal Constitutional Court German Federal Telecommunications Act, 22 June 2004 http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisi ons/2012/2 http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisi ons/2012/2 BVerfG, No. 1 BvR 1299/05, 2/24/12 http://www.bfdi.bund.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/ 411286/publicationFile/25386/Telecommunications Act-TKG.pdf http://www.bfdi.bund.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/ 411286/publicationFile/25386/Telecommunications Act-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. “

11. Annulement from the Constitutional Court Ex-tunc effect of the norm 39/2008, Pubblicazione in G. U. 05/03/2008 LA 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.

12. Unconstitutionality – retroactive effects and different “possible worlds” in the same time 1942 2006 2008 Art. 50, 142 annulled Art. 50 – ( repealed ) Art. 142 – ( inserted ) Art. 50, 142 annulled V1 V2 W1 1942 2006 – it doesn’t exist in law Art. 50, 142 annulled Art. 50 – (-----) Art. 142 – (-----) V1 W2 Art. 50, 142 annulled 2008 1942 Art. 50, 142 Public register of bankrupts W3 V1 2006 Art. 50 – ( repealed ) Art. 142 – (inserted) V2

13. Reasoning on temporal modifications: Terrorism Act, UK, 2006 Terrorism Act 2000, 28 days of detention for terrorism actions 2000-07-24 28 days of detention 2006-07-25 Terrorism Act 2006, sec. 25 modifies detention days from 28 to 14 14 days of detention 14 days of detention Order 2007 suspension of the sec. 25 for one year 2007-07-25 28 days of 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

14. Reasons of the extension Connect 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

15. 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

16. New elements in LegalRuleML textual sources info temporal events list legal temporal intervals metadata on the rules or part of the rule: atom, body, head

17. 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"> http://act2006#sec25 Unique IRI

18. Events and Legal temporal parameters

19. Events and Legal temporal parameters

20. Rules information: type of rule, author, jurdisdiction, temporal parameters <ruleInfo id="ruleInfo1" applysTo="#sec2-rule1"> strict defeasible defeater meta-rule

21. Rule sec2_2007 sec25_2006 Efficacy of the modification [25-07-2007,  [ Application range – [2007, 2008]

22. Defeasibility logic : hierarchy relation Z Z

23. 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

24. Deontic operators

25. Behavior operators Behavior operators: as sequence of obligations or prohibition and ending with eventually a permission Penalty is a particular type of behavior

26. Violation and Reparation Connection Operation: violation  reparation  apply the penalty

27. Penality Pay 1000$ x

28. Violation and riparation x x

29. 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

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