IMOLA II
A
co
mparative
view
from
an
EU
pers
pective
Facult eit de r R ec ht sge le e rdhe id / Facult y o f L aw
A
comp
ara
tive
view
from
an
EU
perspe
ctive
•
I.
Introd
ucti
on
•
II
. Brief
comp
ara
ti
ve
overv
iew
•
II
I. E
U
persp
ecti
ve
•
IV.
Uni
ntende
d
impact?
•
V.
Concl
udi
ng
remarks
Facult eit de r R ec ht sge le e rdhe id / Facult y o f L aw
A
comp
ara
tive
view
from
an
EU
perspe
ctive
•
II
.
Bri
ef
compara
ti
ve
overvi
ew
(1)
–
A.
Sever
al
di
sti
nc
ti
ons
po
ss
ib
le
–
B.
Su
bstan
ti
ve
lan
d
law
and
lan
d
regi
stra
ti
on
law
•
EU
la
w
fo
llows
its
own
path
(cf.
th
e
Ku
bi
ck
a
cas
e,
interpre
ti
ng
th
e
Su
cce
ssi
on
Regu
la
ti
on
)
Facult eit de r R ec ht sge le e rdhe id / Facult y o f L aw
A
comp
ara
tive
view
from
an
EU
perspe
ctive
•
II
.
Bri
ef comparat
ive ov
ervi
ew
(2)
–
C. Pos
iti
ve
v.
Negati
ve
sys
tems
–
D. T
itl
e v. Deeds
–
E.
Rol
e
of t
he regi
str
ar
–
F. Wh
o
has
acc
ess
(pri
vacy,
ro
le
of G
DP
R)
–
G. Evi
denc
e
Facult eit de r R ec ht sge le e rdhe id / Facult y o f L aw
A com
para
tive
view
from
an
EU
perspe
ctive
•
II
I. E
U
persp
ecti
ve
(1)
–
Land
regi
stra
ti
on
data
may
co
me
wi
thi
n
the
ambi
t
of
the
EU’s
new 5th
freedo
m
:
free
fl
ow
of data
•
See
th
e
draf
t
Reg
ul
ation
on
a
fr
amework
of
non
-pers
onal
data
in
the
Eur
opea
n
Unio
n
Facult eit de r R ec ht sge le e rdhe id / Facult y o f L aw
A
comp
ara
tive
view
from
an
EU
perspe
ctive
•
II
I. E
U
persp
ecti
ve
(2)
“The world is witness ing a dr amatic incre ase in the amount and variety of d ata be ing p rod uce d . A long sid e the d ata cre ate d b y b ill ions of p eop le using d igi tal d evice s and se rvices for p er sonal and profe ssio nal re asons, and the d ata ge nera te d b y the incre asing numbe r of connecte d ob jects, the re is data from res
ea rch, from d igi tise d lite rature & archive s and from p ubl ic se rvices such as hosp ital s and land re gis trie s. Thi s "Big Data" p henome non crea te s new p ossi b iliti es to share knowled ge , to carry out re se arch and to de velop and imple ment p ubl ic p olici es . Communi cati on on a Europe an Cl oud Ini ti ati ve, p . 2
Facult eit de r R ec ht sge le e rdhe id / Facult y o f L aw
A
comp
ara
tive
view
from
an
EU
perspe
ctive
•
II
I. E
U
persp
ecti
ve
(3)
–
Techn
ol
ogy
is
bypass
in
g
both
pos
iti
ve
and
negati
ve
EU
in
tegrati
on
–
Al
tho
ugh
lan
d
regi
stri
es
pro
vi
de
in
for
mati
on
on
(
ri
ghts
in
)
immovabl
es
,
the
di
gi
tal
for
mat
of
that
in
for
mati
on
(“data”)
makes
that
in
for
mati
on
a
movab
le
an
d
thu
s
of a
poten
ti
al
ly
cr
os
s-bor
de
r
natu
re
Facult eit de r R ec ht sge le e rdhe id / Facult y o f L aw
A
comp
ara
tive
view
from
an
EU
perspe
ctive
•
II
I. E
U
persp
ecti
ve
(4)
–
Thi
s
was, i
n
fac
t,
the
bac
kgrou
nd
of
the
CROBECO
pro
ject
•
Ho
wever
,
CROBE
CO
came
too
ear
ly
(and
di
d
not
fi
t
ver
y
wel
l wi
th
in
th
e
practi
ce
re
gardi
ng
ar
t.
34
5 TFE
U: no
integra
ti
on
wi
thout
re
ci
proc
ity
),
bu
t
di
d
ra
is
e
aware
ness
Facult eit de r R ec ht sge le e rdhe id / Facult y o f L aw
A
comp
ara
tive
view
from
an
EU
perspe
ctive
•
II
I. E
U
persp
ecti
ve
(5)
–
CROBECO
was
based
on
thr
ee
pi
llar
s:
•
Tec
hn
ol
ogi
cal
devel
opment
s
(intero
perabi
lit
y)
•
Nati
onal
acc
eptan
ce
,
fl
owi
ng
from
pri
vate
internati
onal
la
w
•
No
change o
f
substanti
ve
la
w
was
envi
sa
ged
Facult eit de r R ec ht sge le e rdhe id / Facult y o f L aw
A
comp
ara
tive
view
from
an
EU
perspe
ctive
•
II
I. E
U
persp
ecti
ve
(6)
–
The
ai
m
of
IMO
LA
is
to
cr
eate
a
Eu
ro
pean
Land
Regi
ster
Docu
ment
+
“Impl
ement
a pu
bli
cation
engine that
take
s
a
re
qu
est an
d
fo
rmats
th
e results
in
a s
tand
ar
d
predef
ined
fo
rm
”.
Facult eit de r R ec ht sge le e rdhe id / Facult y o f L aw
A
comp
ara
tive
view
from
an
EU
perspe
ctive
•
II
I. E
U
persp
ecti
ve
(7)
–
IMO
LA
does
not
link
lan
d
regi
stri
es
,
but
pro
vi
des
a
uni
form
ext
ract
–
However
,
any
un
ifo
rm
extract
in
di
gi
tal
for
mat
demands
in
terop
erabi
lity
–
The for
m
wi
ll
have
to
be
acc
epted
by
each
na
ti
ona
l
leg
al
sys
tem
–
No
su
bstan
ti
ve
law
ch
anges
are
envi
saged
Facult eit de r R ec ht sge le e rdhe id / Facult y o f L aw
A
comp
ara
tive
view
from
an
EU
perspe
ctive
•
IV.
Uni
ntende
d
impact? (1)
–
Coul
d
IMO
LA
res
ul
t
in
cr
ypto
-har
moni
sati
o
n
?
•
Di
gi
tal
isat
ion
cannot
take
pl
ace
w
ith
out
standardi
sati
on
:
IMOLA
wi
ll
cr
eate
a stand
ar
d
e-documen
t
•
Once
a d
oc
um
ent
has been
standardi
sed
,
non
-la
wyer
s
m
igh
t
not
perce
iv
e
th
e
di
ffer
ent
le
gal
backgro
un
d
and
di
ff
er
ent
degrees
of
evi
dence
Facult eit de r R ec ht sge le e rdhe id / Facult y o f L aw
A
comp
ara
tive
view
from
an
EU
perspe
ctive
•
IV.
Uni
ntende
d
impact? (2)
–
Coul
d
IMO
LA
res
ul
t
in
cr
ypto
-har
moni
sati
o
n
?
•
The
extensi
ve
co
mp
ar
ati
ve
le
gal
re
sea
rc
h
un
derl
yi
ng
th
e
fo
rm
as
such
is
un
known
to
its
users
•
Us
er
s
my
invo
ke
th
e
standardi
sed
(for
th
em
:
“EU
”)
natu
re
of
th
e
docu
m
ent
as
an
ar
gu
ment
th
at
th
e
info
rmati
on
is
meant
to
ci
rc
ul
ate
(“d
ata”)
and
can
be
re
lied
up
on
Facult eit de r R ec ht sge le e rdhe id / Facult y o f L aw
A
comp
ara
tive
view
from
an
EU
perspe
ctive
•
IV.
Concl
udi
ng
remarks
–
Compar
ati
ve
over
vi
ew
–
EU
pers
pecti
ve
–
Crypto
-har
m
onisat
io
n
?
Facult eit de r R ec ht sge le e rdhe id / Facult y o f L aw
A
comp
ara
tive
view
from
an
EU
perspe
ctive
Prof
.
dr.
J.H.M
. (Sjef) va
n Er
p
Maas
tricht
Unive
rs
ity
P.
O.B. 616
6200
M
D M
aas
tricht
The
Neth
er
land
s
s.vaner
p@m
aas
trichtu
ni
ver
sity.n
l
Ontologie
s
and Semantic
W
eb
Thursda y, F ebruar y 22, 20182
Table
of conte
nts
Spe ctru m of K no wl edge Hi stor y Adva ntages Defi nit io n Types Design p rin cip les Meth odolo gies Lan guages Re as on in g De vel op me nt tool s3 3
Spe
ct
rum
of Kno
wle
dge
W ea k Sem an tic Stro ng sem an tic R elatio nal Mo del Sch em a Entity R elatio ns E R E xten sio n XTM R DF/S UM L DA ML +O IL , OW L Des cr ip tiv e L og ic First Or der L og ic Mo del L og ic T axon om ies T h esau ri On tology4 4
Spe
ct
rum
of Kno
wle
dge
W ea k Sem an tic Stro ng sem an tic R elatio nal Mo del Sch em a Entity R elatio ns E R E xten sio n XTM R DF/S UM L DA ML +O IL , OW L Des cr ip tiv e L og ic First Or der L og ic Mo del L og ic T axon om ies T h esau ri On tologyFirst
5 5
Spe
ct
rum
of Kno
wle
dge
W ea k Sem an tic Stro ng sem an tic R elatio nal Mo del Sch em a Entity R elatio ns E R E xten sio n XTM R DF/S UM L DA ML +O IL , OW L Des cr ip tiv e L og ic First Or der L og ic Mo del L og ic T axon om ies T h esau ri On tologySec
ond
6 6
Spe
ct
rum
of Kno
wle
dge
W ea k Sem an tic Stro ng sem an tic R elatio nal Mo del Sch em a Entity R elatio ns E R E xten sio n XTM R DF/S UM L DA ML +O IL , OW L Des cr ip tiv e L og ic First Or der L og ic Mo del L og ic T axon om ies T h esau ri On tologyThir
d
7 7
Spe
ct
rum
of Kno
wle
dge
W ea k Sem an tic Stro ng sem an tic R elatio nal Mo del Sch em a Entity R elatio ns E R E xten sio n XTM R DF/S UM L DA ML +O IL , OW L Des cr ip tiv e L og ic First Or der L og ic Mo del L og ic T axon om ies T h esau ri On tologyFou
rth
8 8
Spe
ct
rum
of Kno
wle
dge
Land
Regist
ry
C
ommer
ci
al
La
w
Insolv
enc
y
La
w
Civ
il
La
w
…..
9 9
A bit
of Hist
or
y
(1/4)
Th
e te
rm
“On
tolog
y”
originate
s fr
om anc
ie
nt phil
osoph
y.
Phi
losoph
y of e
xis
te
nc
e:
es
se
nc
e vs
. ex
ist
en
ce
.
Anc
ie
nt
Gr
ee
ce
: Th
ey want
ed
to
find
the esse
nc
e
of t
hings
,
ev
en
thr
ough c
hanges:
What ha pp ens with a see d t hat ger min ates and gr ows to be a tr ee? When does it stop be in g a seed? Par men ides: Th er e ar e no chan ges ; s ometh in g th at ex ist , ne ver stops ex ist in g (th e seed does not transf orm, it s our senses th at pe rceiv e th em in a diff er ent for m). Ar ist otl e: Th e seed i s a non compl eted tr ee . Th e tr ee simp ly has chan ged its mode of ex ist en ce (ne ver stopp ed be in g a tr ee).10 10
A bit
of Hist
or
y
(2/4)
Mid
dle
Ages
: focu
se
s on th
e
“univ
ers
als”,
in cont
rast to
“indiv
iduals”.
In th e modeli ng of kn owledge: Univ ersals: Man, B ook , Compute r. ( a type , a pr oper ty , o r a r elati on) Ind ivi duals: Anabel, thi s book , m y co mpute r. ( refer s to a perso n or to an y spec ific obje ct in a co llec tion ) Wil liam of O cka m (En glish Fr ancisca n friar and sc holastic ph ilos op her) : O nl y in divi duals ex ist , rather th an sup ra -in divi dual un iv ersa ls. Th ese ar e th e pr oducts of abstracti on fr om in divi duals by th e hu man mi nd.Modern
Age:
Th
e
es
se
nc
e comes
fr
om t
he
per
ce
pti
on.
Jos é O rtega y Gass et: The w or ld depends fr om th e perso n th at pe rceiv e it. In format ion Sy stems: Ev er y sys tem can rep resent th e w orld in dif fer en t forms, depen din g on its pu rpose .11 11
A bit
of Hist
or
y
(3/4)
Con te mp orar y Age (XX -XXI): Th e focus of atten tion is on th e In formati on Sc ien ces. The or etic al bases appear with Formal O ntolo gy: Axiom atic , formal and sy ste mati c de velo pme nt of the logi c in all the forms and m odes of exis tenc e (formal pr oper ties , e ntitie s clas sif icati on, cate gories for mo deling the w orld , etc .). Ont ologi cal E ngin eeri ng : Activi ties th at con cern th e pr ocess of on tol og y de vel op me nt, me th odolo gie s, te ch niq ues, lan guages et c.12 12
A bit
of Hist
or
y(
4/4)
At the begin
ning of th
e 90
s: E
ffor
ts
ha
ve star
te
d on
the
const
ruct
ion
of ontolog
ies
fr
om scratc
h,
on r
eusi
ng
other
pr
e-exist
ing
ontolo
gies,
and f
or semi
-autom
atizing
methods
for r
ed
uc
ing the kno
wl
ed
ge a
cq
uis
ition
phase
.
Ev
er
y
gr
oup use
d it
s
own
princ
iple
s.
Th
e absenc
e of
some
common
guide
s imped
ed
its
de
vel
opment
.
In
1996:
The
1
stCong
ress on Ontolog
ical
Eng
ineering.
In 1997:
Th
e 2
ndCongr
ess:
Use
of methodolog
ies
for the
de
sign and e
val
uati
on
of ont
ologies.
13 13
Systems
of Kn
owle
dge:
adva
nt
ages
& d
isa
dva
nt
ages
O ntolo gies ad vantages for Applic ations Imp ro ve reu sa bi lity and in ter oper abili ty Imp ro vement on Sea rches Imp ro vement of na vigation Th ey can pe rmi t in fer en ces Contri but e coher en ce and co nsisten cy rul es O ntolo gies d isadvantages for Applic ations M or e usefu l when mor e co mpl ex, bu t: Incr ease s the cr eatio n dif ficul ty Vi suali zat ion pr oble ms It is d ifficul t to find ready -made onto logi es to matc h user’ s need. The siz e of the reso ur ce (onto log y) is in versel y pr opor tional to its spec ifici ty . All met hodologi es ha ve 2 gr eat pr obl ems: Bottl enec k on the kno wle dge acquis itio n D ifficul ties on vali dation b y d om ain enginee rs.14 14
Defini
tion
and compo
nent
s
(1/2)
D ist inc t defi niti on s of “on to lo gy ”: De fine s t he ter m s an d co ncern ing relatio nship s on a vo cab ular y of a d eter m ine d a rea , an d th e ru les f or co m binin g term s an d r elatio nship s fo r ex ten din g the vo cab ular y. (Neche s et al., 1 99 1). Is an ex plic it spe cif icat io n o f a co ncep tua liz atio n (Gru ber , 1 99 3). Is a fo rm al spe cif icat io n o f a sh ar ed co ncep tua liz atio n ( Borst , 1 99 8). Is a fo rm al an d e xp lic it spe cif icat io n o f a sha red co ncep tua liz atio n ( Stud er et al., 1 99 8): Co nceptu al izat io n : Ab strac t mod el of a ph en omenon o f r eal ity with its rela tiv e con cepts. Ex pli cit: th e con cepts, th eir types an d restr ictio ns ar e ex pli citl y defi ned. Fo rm al : Read ab le by a mac hin e. Sh ar ed: with con sen su al kn owled ge (accepted b y a comm un ity) . Is a set of lo gical ax io m s de signe d fo r un de rstan din g th e r eq uir ed sign ifi can ce of a vo cab ular y (Guar ino , 1 99 8). Hea vy on to lo gies vs . L ight Ontol ogi es (on ly indic ate subs umpti on relati ons betw een c on cep ts).15 15
Defini
tion
and compo
nent
s
(2/2)
O
ntol
og
y C
omponent
s:
Clas ses : Co ncept s, abstra ct or specifi c. Clas ses in an ontol og y shoul d be org ani zed in tax onom ies. Rel ati onsh ips: As soc iat ion be tw een domain concep ts. Pr oteg é sup por ts onl y bi nar y relat ions hi ps : rel(domain, range), whi ch ar e repr ese nt ed by “o bj ect pr oper ties” (sl ots ). Fun cti on s: Is a special typ e of r elat ions hip in whi ch one of th e relat ions hi p’ s elem en ts is th e resul t of a form ul a Axi oms (r estrict ion s) / Ru les: Us ed f or modeli ng sent en ces th at ar e tru e. The y repr ese nt kno wledg e th at ca n not be for mall y defin ed with th e rest of th e term s. Shoul d be used to pr eser ve consisten cy . In stances: Us ed f or rep resent in g elem en ts or in divi duals of an ont olog y. Pr oper ties (and th eir va lu es) of th e abo ve co mpon en ts16 16
Ont
olo
gy
Type
s
Eq uil ib rium amon gs t reu sa bil ity & usa bil ity:17 17
Design
Princi
ples
C
larit
y: C
omm
uni
cat
e the
signi
fic
anc
e of
te
rms.
Be
languag
e
inde
pend
ent
.
Ext
en
sib
ilit
y: Anti
ci
pate
the
shar
ed
use of the
v
ocabul
ar
y.
C
oher
en
ce
: Th
e inf
er
en
ce
s
that
a
re
reali
zed should
be
consis
te
nt
wit
h the
defin
iti
ons
of
the
ontolog
y.
Minimal ontologic
al c
ompr
omise
: Compr
omise
s
should
b
e
kep
t to
a
minim
um,
b
ut
guarantee
ing
the
es
se
nti
als.
(Dates
in
Americ
an o
r E
nglis
h f
ormat)
O
the
r
prin
ci
ple
s:
Class es and th eir sub class es shou ld be w ell defi ne d wit h disju nct iv e and ex hau sti ve kn owledge . N ame standa rdizati on18 18
Methodolo
gies
•
Methon tolo gy: is a series of activi ties for reali zi ng a met hodolog y. Comp lica ted bu t ver y near to th e w orld of Softwar e En gin eering. Us efu l in dyn ami c and comp le x domai ns • Us chol d’ s met hodolog y • O TK M eth odo log y • T or onto Vir tu al En terpri se (T O VE): It has manag ement pr oper ties and is used whe n th e pu rp ose is clear . • Des crip tiv e Ontol og y for Li ngu istic and C ognit ive En gin eering (DO LCE)19 19
Meth
odolog
y
ME
THONT
OL
OGY
(1/6)
Gómez
-Pér
ez et
al.
20 20
Methodolo
gy
METHO
NT
OLO
GY
(2/6)
Con cep tu al izat io n T as ks:21 21
Meth
odolog
y
ME
THONT
OL
OGY
(3/6)
TASK 1: Con stru ct a glossa ry of te rms. E ver y te rm th at wi ll b e par t of th e on tol og y shou ld in clu de a brie f defi nit ion such as s yn on yms and acr on yms, th ei r typ e et c. TAS K 2 : Constru ct tax onomies in or der to class ify concep ts. Result : O ne or mor e taxonom ies wher e th e concep ts ar e class ified . Th e tax onom y shou ld be cr eated acc or din g to th e relat ions hips: Sub clas s-of. Disju nct iv e decomposit ion. Ex hau stiv e decomposit ion. Pa rti tion.22 22
Meth
odolog
y
ME
THONT
OL
OGY
(4/6)
TASK 3:
Desc
ribe
the
ex
ist
ing r
el
ations
hips
amo
ngst
conc
ept
s o
f the
ontolog
y, or a
mongst
othe
r
ex
ist
ing ontologies.
Th
is wil
l
giv
e rise to
the
rel
ati
ons
d
ia
gram
.
TASK
4:
Con
struc
t the
con
cepts
dicti
on
ar
y, in
which
the pr
inciple
instances
of conce
pts
ar
e included,
the
class a
nd i
nstance
attribut
es,
and
t
heir
relationships
with
other
concept
s.
23 23
Methodolo
gy
METHO
NT
OLO
GY
(5/6)
TASK 5:
desc
ribe
in
de
tail
ev
er
y
relati
on
that a
ppears
in
the
r
el
ations
diag
ram
(T
ask
3).
Th
is
wi
ll giv
e
plac
e to the
rela
tions tab
le
.
TASK 6:
Desc
ribe
in
the
tabl
e
of in
st
anc
e
att
ribu
te
s each
ins
tanc
e
att
ribu
te
that
appe
ars i
n the c
onc
ep
ts
dic
tionar
y
(T
ask 4).
TASK
7:
D
esc
ribe in
the
table
of class
attributes
each
class
attribut
e
that a
ppears
in
the
concept
s
dic
tiona
ry (T
ask
4).
TASK
8:
Describe in
detail
each constant in
the
ta
ble
of
constants.
These
constants
ar
e
inf
orm
ation r
elati
ve
to
the
s
table do
ma
in,
s
imilarl
y
to
ma
the
ma
tical constants.
24 24
Meth
odolog
y
ME
THONT
OL
OGY
(6/6)
TASK 9:
Defini
tion
of
formal
axiom
s
for speci
fying
rest
riction
s.
TASK 10:
Defini
tion
of
ru
les
,
for
inf
er
rin
g
kno
wle
dg
e,
suc
h a
s inf
er
ring v
alues in
the
a
tt
ribu
te
s, ins
tanc
es
of
rel
ations
hips
, etc
.
TASK
11:
D
esc
ribe so
me
inst
ances o
f the
o
ntolog
y.
(optiona
l)
25 25
Lang
uag
es
Ev
olution
(1/2)
Ont ologi es marku p lan guages:26 26
Spe
ct
rum
of Kno
wle
dge
W ea k Sem an tic Stro ng sem an tic R elatio nal Mo del Sch em a Entity R elatio ns E R E xten sio n X TM R DF/S UM L DA ML +O IL , OW L Descr ip tiv e L og ic First Or der L og ic Mo del L og ic T axon om ies T h esau ri On tology XM I O WL / RDF / RDF S TH ES27 27
Lang
uag
es
Ev
olution
(2/2)
Re me mb er : O ntologies’ langua ges should per mit the wr iting of explicit and formal co nce ptualiz ations . The mai n requis ites ar e : A w ell def ined sy ntax. Possi bility of ef ficient reasoning. Suf fici ent sem antic w ealth. The richer the language , the mo re inef fici ent is its reaso ning, up to the point of being “inco mputabl e”. W e need to compr omis e amongst those tw o things.28 28
O
WL
W
eb
Ont
olog
y Language
(O
WL)
(20
04)
: is based
on R
DF
(S
).
Has
3 la
yers
:
O WL Lit e: Sma ll sub set based on frames, bu t wit h some reas oni ng. O WL D L: Sub set of First Or der Logic (FO L) named Descr ipti on Lo gi cs . It s in fer ence ca pacity is no w poten t and dec ision based . O WL F ul l: RDF Ex ten sion , pe rmi tting met aclas ses .Various
Sy
ntax
es
:
Abstract syntax (concep tu al iz at ion ): Cor respon ds to th e common Des crip tion Logic (DL), eas y to read and wr ite RDF/X ML (im pl ementat ion ): Ca n be writ ten as a n RDF documen t.29 29
SK
OS
SK
O
S
(Simp
le
Kn
ow
ledge
O
rganization
Syste
m)
is
an
O
WL
on
tolog
y
to
repr
esent
kno
wled
ge organi
zat
io
ns
sys
tem
s
(K
OS
)
such as
th
esauri,
clas
sifica
tions
, subje
ct
he
adings
,
tax
on
omie
s, et
c.
SK
O
S
con
sid
er
th
ose
sys
te
ms
as
sets
of
co
nc
epts id
entified
w
ith
U
R
Is an
d
gr
ou
ped
in
to
a con
ce
pt sche
me
.
SK
OS
concepts can be
li
nk
ed
to each othe
r us
ing
hierar
chical
and
ass
ociativ
e
seman
tic
relat
ion
s.
SK
O
S
con
ce
pts can
be
do
cu
mented
with
note
s of var
ious
type
s:
scope
n
ote
s, def
in
ition
s, edito
rial
n
ote
s, et
c.
SK
OS
con
cep
ts can b
e
gr
oup
ed
into
coll
ections,
wh
ich
can be
lab
ele
d
an
d/
or
or
der
ed.
SK
O
S
con
ce
pts of diff
er
en
t
con
ce
pt sche
me
s
can
b
e
ma
pp
ed
.
SK
O
S
pr
ovides
fou
r
basic
typ
es
of
ma
pp
in
g lin
k:
h
ierar
ch
ical,
as
soci
ativ
e,
clos
e
eq
uivalen
t an
d
ex
act eq
uivalen
t.
30 30
Cor
e
Vocabula
ry:
D
ublin Cor
e
Met
adata f
or di
sc
ov
eri
ng r
es
our
ce
s: a
dmin
ist
rativ
e,
de
sc
ript
iv
e,
use
, pr
ese
rvati
on,
struc
tural
or tec
hnic
al
det
ail
inf
orma
tion.
O
pe
n standar
d
Fi
fte
en
cor
e ele
men
ts
:
31
31
Reasoning and Inf
er
enc
es
–
Its impo
rtance
Wh
y is r
easoni
ng i
mpor
tant
?
Tests the co nsisten cy of th e ontol og y and its kno wledg e. Test th e consisten cy of th e relat ion ship s Class ifies aut omatic al ly in stances in class es.When is
it impor
tant?
When w e design bi g ont ologies, and w e a re man y. When w e in tegrate and/or shar e ont olog ies fr om var iou s sour ces. When w e edit /chan ge th e ont olog ySo w
e nee
d:
Sema nt ic is a pr er eq ui site in or der to sup por t in fer en ce . Us e a ut omatic reas oners th at alr eady ex ist for th ose formalisms.32 32
De
velopment
Too
ls
htt p:/ /www .r eu se compan y.com @Reu seCo mpan y con tact @r eu secompan y.com Mar ga rita Sa la s, 16 2nd Floor Inno va tion Center LEGA T EC Technolog y Par k 28919 Le ga nés – Madr id SP A IN – EU Tel: (+3 4) 9 12 1 7 2 5 9 6 Fax : (+34 ) 91 6 8 0 9 8 2 6
Legal termin
olo
gy
and co
mparati
ve law:
the
role o
f the o
perat
ion
al
rul
es
Pro f. Dr . El en a Ior iat ti Tren to U niv ersit y (It al y), Facul ty of LawCom
parati
ve
Law
Comparative law as a scien ce (2 0° cen tury ) « So ci et y o f co mpara tive law » ( Lo nd o n) and « So ci ét é d e Legi slat io n Comparée » ( Pari s) Comparative law was int ro duced in Italy in the 20 ° C en tury by pro f. Ro do lfo Sacco (U niv ersit y of Turin , A ccad em ia Nazionale dei Li nce i) A cad em ic chair s in compa rat ive lawCompa
rative L
aw
Science
Knowledge
Methodology
Knowledg
e
Data
=
legal
rules
(norms
)
The
operation
al
rules
Show
as
the
syste
m
rea
lly
wo
rks
……
...
b
eyo
nd
defi
ni
tions
and the
legal
languag
e
-A)
Meth
od
olo
gy
:
the
Theo
ry
of
the
Formants
Legisl ation , const it ut ions , decr ees ( leg isl ative form ant ) Case la w ( cas e law form ant ) Schola rl y writ ti ngs ( doctr inal form ant ) R. S AC C O , Lega l Forma nts : A Dyna mic App ro ach To Comp ara tive Law , in The Am erican Jou rn al of Co mp ara tive Law , V olu m e 39 , Issu e 1, 1 Jan uary 19 91 , p . 1 ff .The
for
ma
nts
Legal
rules
can
be
fou
nd
in
the
differe
nt
formants
of
the
vari
ous
cou
ntries
(legal
systems
)
Exam
ple
1:
l’erede
appa
rente
A
perso
n
who
believ
es
him
self
to
be
heir
dispo
se
s
of
pr
op
erty
(h
e
has
in
herited
)
to
a
th
ird
person
,
who
is
in
go
od
faith
.
The
transf
er
is
valid
in
Italy
,
under
the
defin
ition
«t
rasf
erim
ento
dell’
erede
apparent
e
al
terzo»
)
R . S AC CO , Le gal Fo rm ants : A Dynam ic Appr oa ch To Com par ative La w , in Th e Ameri can Jou rnal of C om pa rati ve Law ,V olum e 39 ,Janu ary 1991 .The
for
ma
nts
Ita ly Co de ar t. 534 : y es Cas e law : y es Doctr ine : y es Fr anc e Co de : X* Cas e law : y es Doctr ine : no Belg ium Co de : X Cas e law : no Doctr ine : no *T his is a the ore tical cas e . N ot e that the le g isl at iv e forma nt mi g ht hav e chang e d aft e r the F re nch re form of t he law of cont ract of 2 01 6.The
operation
al
rules
The
de
fi
nition
«trasferim
ento
de
ll’
erede
ap
parente
al
terzo»
is
pre
sent
on
ly
in
the
It
alian
legal
languag
e,
but
th
e
same
op
erati
onal
rul
e
exi
sts
in
Fr
anc
e
too
(ca
se
law
form
an
t).
The
operation
al
rules
The
th
e
ory
of
th
e
formant
s
draws
a
di
sti
ncti
on
betw
ee
n
th
e
oper
ati
onal
(wo
rk
ing
rules
),
the
rea
l
practi
ces
of
a
legal
syste
m
…
……
a
nd
th
e
defi
ni
tions
(legal
langua
ge
),
the
symbol
ic
,
lingui
sti
c
set
uti
lized
by
the
jur
ists
to
decri
be
the
legal
rules
.
Exam
ple
2:
m
edical
ma
lpr
acti
ce
In A merican law m edical m a lprac tice is cl a ssifi ed as a To rt ,wh ereas in France it is consid ere d a Breach of Cont rac . French law on cont rac tu a lliabi lity is stri c t, so tha t th e vic tim do es no t ne ed to pro ve that the do ct or was in faul t. In U sa tor tio us law m edical ma lpr ac tic e is ba se d on ne glig en ce and so the vict im has to pro ve the do ct or ’s faul t. The two syst em s are apparent ly at oppo sit e P.G . M o nater i, The ABC of c om pa rat ive law : leg al formant s and c om pa ris on , at ht tps :// w w w .res e ar c hga te .net/ pu bli c a tion /290574779 _A BC _of_Com pa rati ve _L aw _L e ga l_F or m ants_a nd _Com pa ris onMedical
malpractice
Fr enc h ca se law has intr o duce d a di st inc tio n be twee n two di ff er en t kind of contr ac tual o bli gat io ns : o bl igat io ns de m o ye n a nd o bl ig at io ns de re su ltat : in routi ne m edi cal o pe ra tio ns a d o ct o r is und er a duty de result at and so the victi m of a dama ge has no t to pr ov e the fa ul t of the do ctor ; in non ro uti ne o pe ra tio ns the do c to r is und er a duty de m oye n , wh ich mea ns th at he jus t pr omised to use hi s pr o fe ssi o nal sk ill, an d so th e vi ct im of a da ma ng e mus t pr o ve a do ct o r's fa ult, to be co mpensate d . P.G . Mona te ri, The ABC of co mpara tive law : lega l form an ts an d co mpari so n , at ht tp s:// w ww .res ear chg at e .ne t/pu b lic at ion /29 05 74 77 9_A BC_o f_Co mpara tive_La w _L ega l_F or m an ts_a nd_C o mpari so nMedical
malpractice
A me rican court s (case law) : in rou tine m edical oper a tio ns th e c our ts a pp ly th e do c tri ne re s ip sa loq ui tu r, so th e vic tim's damag e is e vid en ce of th e do ct or 's fa ult and the vict im is not requ ired to pro ve it. Res ips a lo q ui tu r is no t app lied in no n ro ut in e o pera tio ns , and so th e vict im mu st pro ve that the do ct or was in faul t. P.G . M o nat er i, Th e A BC of c o m para tive law : lega l fo rman ts and c o mp ar iso n, at ht tps ://w ww .res e archgat e .n et /pub lic at io n/ 29 05 747 79 _A BC_ o f_C o m parat iv e _Law_Le ga l_F o rmant s_ a nd_ Com par iso nThe
ope
rat
ional
rul
es
in
medical
ma
lpr
acti
ce
The defi ni tio ns (legal lang uage ) ar e di ff er ent …… U sa: tort (tort ius iabi lit y) Fr anc e: co ntr act (co ntr actu al liabi lit y) ……. and ass ume di ff er ent legal rules : Fr anc e: vict im has no t to pr o ve the do ctor’s fa ul t; U sa: v icti m needs to pr o ve the do ctor’s fa ul t. The o pe ra tiv e, wo rki ng rules ar e the same in U sa and Fr anc e: In routi ne cases victi ms do no t need to pr o ve the fa ul t. In no n routi ne cases vict ims mus t pr o ve the do ctor’s fa ult .B)
Methodology
:
the
Fa
ctua
lappr
oach
How
operati
onal
rul
es
are
collect
ed
-Ques
tionnaires
;
-Nati
onal
answers
and
reports;
-Fi
nal
reports.
The
Factual
approach
Lev el 1: M r. W h ite bel iev e s himsel ft o be heir and d ispo ses of pro pert y (he has inherit ed ) t o Mr . Bl ue , who is in good fai th . 1: Is this transfer of pro pe rt y val id in your legal syst em ? 2. If yes, where is the rul e fo rmul ate d ? 3. If no, can M r. W hit e recov er pro pe rt y? If yes , un der which cond itio ns ? Opert ive rul es of all the co unt ries (legal syst em s) inv o lv ed .C)
Methodology
: ge
notypes
and
fen
otypes
The c onst ruc tion of t he common syst em Ge not ype El e ment s that are fundam e nt al of a sp e cif ic cat e g ory . Fe not ype The re al ch aract e rs of t he ope rat ional rul e s pre sen t in t he diff e re nt le g al sy st e ms . W he n som e of those charact e rs coinci de w ith the fondament al e le ment s of t he g e not ype , the operat ional rul e bel ong s to that sp e cif ic cat e g ory . R. Sacc o , Leg a l F o rm a nt s: A D yna m ic App ro a c h To C o m pa ra tiv e La w , in The Am erican Jo urnal o f C o m pa ra tiv e La w , V o lum e 39 , Ja nua ry 1991.Genotypes
and
fenotypes
. Example
n. 1
The C on structio n of the com m on syst em G ENO TYP E -T ran sfer of pr op er ty by so m eon e act ing as an heir . -Good fait h of the receiving per so n. F ENOTYPE All the cou ntries in wh ic h these el em ents are pr esent ……. . …. reg ardl ess oth er char act ers , fo r instance the good /bad fait h of the pr et end ed heir and other deta lis .The
Fac
tual
approa
ch
Lev el 2: In 20 17 M r. Gree n underwent an appendecto my (ro ut ine o perat io n) bu tcont ract e d an inf ect io n duri ng the ope rat io n. 1. Can Mr . Gre en take act io n fo r compen sat io n aga inst the do ct or ? 2. If yes , what is Mr . Gree n requ ired to pro ve? 3. Part icul a rly , mu st Mr .Gre en pro ve the do ct or ’s faul t?The
Factual
appro
ach
Lev el 2: In 20 17 M r. Gree n underwent an heart tra nspla nt (no n ro ut ine operat io n ) bu taft er the su rg ery he ne ede d the su pport of the he art machine anyway . 1. Can M r. Gree n take act io n fo r co mpens at io n ag ai nst the do ct or ? 2. If yes , what is Mr . Gree n requ ired to pro ve? 3. Part icul a rly , mu st Mr , Gre en pro ve the do ct or ’s faul t?Geno
types
and
feno
types
. Exam
ple
n. 2
The const ract io n of the common syst em . G EN OT Y PE Ro ut ine o perat io ns no d o ct o r’s fa ul t t o be pro ved Non ro ut ine operat io ns do ct or ’s faul t t o be pro ved Fenotype Al lthe count ries in which the se el em ents are prese nt …… .. …. regardle ss the legal cl assifi cat io n of the responsabil ity is tor tor co nt ra ct , reg ar d less the kind of act io n, regard le ss the prescri pt io n….B
L
O
CKCH
A
IN
&
R
E
A
L
ES
T
A
TE
O ppo rtun itie s, le ss on s & ne xt steps E L R N W O RK S H O P 01 -06 -2018 , T a llinn Jac qu es V o s , K a d as ter2|
L
as
t y
ea
r…
E L R N w o rks hop, 2018 -T a llinn Jac qu es V o s , K a d as ter“
“Land
R
egi
s
try
and
C
o
mm
e
rc
ial
R
egi
s
te
rs
–
the
y
w
ill
be
c
o
m
e
ob
s
ole
te
.”
(E
m
e
rc
e)
201705 11 – G en er al A ss em bly , E LR A (B ru ss els)s ou rce : ft .c om
5|
B
L
O
CKCH
A
IN
W
IL
L
BR
IN
G
…
•
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
IO
N
S
Y
MM
E
T
RY
•
IMM
U
TAB
IL
ITY
•
T
R
A
N
S
P
A
R
E
NCY
201705 11 – G en er al A ss em bly , E LR A (B ru ss els)Land
R
eg
is
te
rs
O B JE CT S U B JE CT R IG H T IN R EM 201705 11 – G en er al A ss em bly , E LR A (B ru ss els)Land
R
eg
is
te
rs
O B JE CT S U B JE CT R IG H T IN R EM O W N E R S H IP U S U F RUCT B U IL D IN G R IG HT E T C… 201705 11 – G en er al A ss em bly , E LR A (B ru ss els)Land
R
eg
is
te
rs
O B JE CT S U B JE CT R IG H T IN R EM O W N E R S H IP U S U F RUCT B U IL D IN G R IG HT E T C… N A T UR AL LE G A L PE R S O N LIM IT A T IO NS E T C… 201705 11 – G en er al A ss em bly , E LR A (B ru ss els)Land
R
eg
is
te
rs
O B JE CT S U B JE CT R IG H T IN R EM O W N E R S H IP U S U F RUCT B U IL D IN G R IG HT E T C… N A T UR AL LE G A L PE R S O N LIM IT A T IO NS E T C… H O U SES AP P A R T M E N T / C O ND O M IN IU M C AB LES & PIPE LIN ES E T C… 201705 11 – G en er al A ss em bly , E LR A (B ru ss els)B
lockc
ha
in
(1)
A
RCHI
VE
R
E
G
IS
T
R
A
T
ION
IN
FO
R
M
A
T
ION
Ye
s,
ha
sh
/po
in
ter
N
o, t
oo
c
omp
lex
N
o,
da
ta
re
trie
val
201705 11 – G en er al A ss em bly , E LR A (B ru ss els)B
lockc
ha
in
(2)
G
ene
sis
-b
lo
ck
G
ov
er
nan
ce?
S
m
ar
t c
on
tra
cts
W
ho?
Q
ua
lity
-iss
ue
D
A
O
, indemn
ity
C
od
e
=
la
w
=
c
ode
201705 11 – G en er al A ss em bly , E LR A (B ru ss els)B
lockc
ha
in
(3)
V
endo
r
lo
ck
-in?
B
itc
oin
-ba
sed?
C
om
ple
te?
W
ho
o
w
ns
da
ta
P
oS
&
no
P
oW
N
o,
da
ta
re
trie
val
201705 11 – G en er al A ss em bly , E LR A (B ru ss els)T
rus
t as
a
fa
iry
ta
le?
SE
CUR
E
D
A
TA
IMM
A
T
URE
O PE N & T R A N S P A R A NT C .I.A. ? D .I. Y.? P oW ? P oS ? D A O? T ran spa ran t: y es , open? 201705 11 – G en er al A ss em bly , E LR A (B ru ss els)In
F
u
tu
re?
S M A R T C O N T R A C TS V A R IO U S IN IT IA T IVES S TA ND A RD IZ A T ION N ot all lega l a spe cts R edundan cy & p riv ati za tion! IS O /T C 307 , BI M , e tc. 201705 11 – G en er al A ss em bly , E LR A (B ru ss els)15|
T
RU
S
T
E
D
T
HIRD
P
AR
T
IES…
•
V
A
LID
A
T
E
T
R
A
N
SA
C
T
IO
NS
•
G
U
ID
E
A
C
E
R
TA
IN
P
R
O
C
ES
•
DR
A
F
T
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
TS
•
ID
E
N
T
IF
Y
O
B
JE
C
T
S
&
S
U
B
JE
C
TS
•
A
R
E
A
N
IND
EPE
ND
A
N
T
W
IT
N
ESS
•
P
R
EVE
N
T
F
R
A
UD
201705 11 – G en er al A ss em bly , E LR A (B ru ss els)T yp h ie r u w te kst Typ h ie r u w te kst
F
RAC
T
IO
N
A
L
O
W
N
E
R
S
HIP
B R IC K L A ND B R IC K H O U SE B L OQ H O U SE E T C ., E TC17|
T
h
is
y
ea
r…
ELRN w ork sh op, 2018 -Ta llinn J a cq u e s Vo s , K a d a s ter‘B
L
O
CKCH
A
IN
WIL
L
R
EP
L
A
C
E
EVE
R
Y
B
O
D
Y’
-R E M O VE S L A CK F R O M P R O C ESSES -INCR E A SE T R A N S P A R E NCY -IM P R O VE P R IV A CY -P R EVE N T F R A UD -A N E W CH A P T E R F O R A D IG IT A L IN F RA S T R E A M LI N IN G P R O C ESSES K A D A S T E R -O N -LI NE SE LF -S O VE R E IG N ID E N T IT Y…? G A RB A G E IN … P O SS IB L E W H A T W A S N O T P O SS IB L E , T OO C O M P L EX O R T OO EXPE N S IVE-S C A LI N G : ( IN T E R )N A T IO N AL -S T A ND A RD IS A T IO N (SE M A N T IC S) -ID E N T IFI C A T ION -A CC ESS & C O N T R OL -GO VE RN A NC E : Q U A LI T Y , RU L E O F L A W , E N F O RC E M E NT -T E CHN O L OG Y / A RCH IT E C T URE -SE CUR ITY
