LOF-ODP-003: Correlative Deontic Positions¶
| Identifier | LOF-ODP-003 |
| IRI | https://w3id.org/lof/odp-003.owl |
| Repository | https://github.com/legal-ontologies-foundry/lof-odp-003 |
| Status | draft, with an open placement decision |
| Version | 0.1.0 |
| Depends on | LOF-ODP-001 |
| Drafted by | David R. Koepsell |
| For review by | William Mandrick, Barry Smith |
Decision required
This pattern is published in two versions that differ only in the BFO placement of legal position. The founding coordinators are asked to choose between them. See the decision.
Intent¶
Wesley Hohfeld showed that the word "right" covers four different legal positions, each paired with a correlative held by another party:
| Position | Correlative | Order |
|---|---|---|
| claim | duty | first-order: what parties must or may do |
| liberty | no-claim | first-order |
| power | liability | second-order: who can change first-order positions |
| immunity | disability | second-order |
This pattern models the eight positions, their correlative pairing, their holders, the legal content that grounds them, and the legal acts in which powers are exercised. It gives every Foundry ontology a common vocabulary for rights and duties that is more precise than the word "right" alone.
Competency questions¶
- What duties does this person hold, and to whom are they owed?
- What is the correlative of this claim, and who holds it?
- In virtue of what legal content does this position exist?
- Which legal acts were exercises of this power?
- Does this position survive the assignment of the claim, or the death of its holder?
Solution¶
Classes¶
| Label | IRI | Parent | Correlative |
|---|---|---|---|
| legal position | ODP003_0001000 |
see decision | |
| first-order legal position | ODP003_0001009 |
legal position | |
| second-order legal position | ODP003_0001010 |
legal position | |
| claim (alt. right) | ODP003_0001001 |
first-order | duty |
| duty | ODP003_0001002 |
first-order | claim |
| liberty (alt. privilege) | ODP003_0001003 |
first-order | no-claim |
| no-claim (alt. no-right) | ODP003_0001004 |
first-order | liberty |
| power | ODP003_0001005 |
second-order | liability |
| liability | ODP003_0001006 |
second-order | power |
| immunity | ODP003_0001007 |
second-order | disability |
| disability | ODP003_0001008 |
second-order | immunity |
Definitions for all eleven classes are in the ontology file. For example, duty: "A first-order legal position in virtue of which its holder is required to engage in, or refrain from, some conduct owed to another party."
Relations¶
| Label | IRI | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| held by | ODP003_0001100 |
A relation between a legal position and the person or organization whose position it is. |
| grounded in | ODP003_0001101 |
A relation between a legal position and the legal content in virtue of which it exists. |
| correlative of | ODP003_0001102 |
A symmetric relation between two legal positions held by different parties, each of which exists if and only if the other does. |
| exercised in | ODP003_0001103 |
A relation between a power and a legal act through which the holder changes the legal positions of another party. |
Axioms (Manchester syntax, common to both options)¶
legal position SubClassOf (held by some material entity)
and (grounded in some legal content)
and (correlative of some legal position)
claim SubClassOf first-order legal position
and (correlative of some duty) and (correlative of only duty)
duty SubClassOf first-order legal position
and (correlative of some claim) and (correlative of only claim)
... likewise for the other three pairs ...
DisjointClasses: claim, duty, liberty, no-claim, power, liability, immunity, disability
correlative of: Symmetric
The placement decision¶
The two options differ in two axioms only.
| Option A (editors' file) | Option B (alternatives/) |
|
|---|---|---|
| legal position SubClassOf | specifically dependent continuant (BFO:0000020) | generically dependent continuant (BFO:0000031) |
| held by | functional subproperty of BFO inheres in | ordinary relation, not functional |
| A position is... | a feature of its holder, like a role | a piece of legal content's upshot, related to a holder |
| Can a position change holders? | No. It ends when its holder ceases to hold it. | Yes. The same position can pass to a new holder. |
| Assignment of a claim | the old claim ends; a new claim begins in the assignee | the same claim is now held by the assignee |
| Death of a debtor | the duty ends; the estate bears a new duty | the same duty passes to the estate |
| Fit with ODP-002 | uniform: roles and positions both inhere in bearers | positions and roles are of different kinds |
| Fit with ODP-001 | positions are distinct from the content grounding them | positions are close in kind to legal content |
Held by is functional in Option A because BFO's axioms state that a specifically dependent continuant has exactly one bearer. BFO's OWL file does not encode this, so the pattern states it explicitly.
A test that separates them¶
The repository includes a worked example (a residential lease) and an
assignment test, in which the landlord assigns its claim to rent to a
collection agency, and the agency is said to hold the same claim.
make test-options reasons over both:
| Lease example | Same claim after assignment | |
|---|---|---|
| Option A | consistent | inconsistent |
| Option B | consistent | consistent |
So the choice is not merely metaphysical. It determines how every Foundry ontology must represent assignment, succession, subrogation, and novation. Under Option A, these are all modeled as the ending of one position and the beginning of another, linked by a legal act. Under Option B, they are changes in the holder of a single persisting position.
Considerations¶
For Option A. It treats legal positions uniformly with legal roles (ODP-002). It keeps a clear line between the content of the law, which is generically dependent, and what the law brings about in particular persons, which is specifically dependent. It also matches ordinary legal talk of a person having a duty in the way they have a role. Novation, where a new obligation replaces the old, fits it naturally.
For Option B. Legal practice often treats a claim as a transferable asset, the same claim passing from assignor to assignee. Option B represents that directly, without multiplying positions. It also aligns with approaches that treat obligations as directive information content, such as the Common Core Ontologies' directive information content entities.
Declaration of interest. The drafter's own work (A Structural Ontology of the Law) treats obligations as specifically dependent continuants, as in Option A. Option A is placed in the editors' file only so that the pattern has a working default; it carries no presumption.
Example¶
ex:anaRentDuty a odp3:0001002 ; # duty
odp3:0001100 ex:ana ; # held by
odp3:0001101 ex:leaseTerms ; # grounded in
odp3:0001102 ex:northsideRentClaim . # correlative of
ex:northsideRentClaim a odp3:0001001 ; # claim
odp3:0001100 ex:northside ;
odp3:0001101 ex:leaseTerms .
ex:northsideTerminationPower a odp3:0001005 ; # power
odp3:0001100 ex:northside ;
odp3:0001101 ex:tenantCode ;
odp3:0001102 ex:anaTerminationLiability .
Alignment with legal standards (LOF-P-015)¶
The eight positions follow Hohfeld's Fundamental Legal Conceptions (1913, 1917). LKIF-Core and LegalRuleML represent obligations and permissions as deontic modalities or rule components, rather than as entities with holders, so their mapping to this pattern is partial. It will be documented once the placement question is settled.
Consequences and limitations¶
- The pattern does not say what a position is about: the action type a duty requires (paying rent) or a liberty permits. Referring to types of action is a known difficulty in OWL; the options are listed below.
- OWL cannot express that correlatives are held by different parties, or that a claim and its correlative duty concern the same action. These are documented constraints, not enforced ones.
- Hohfeld's jural opposites (claim versus no-claim in the same holder) are not modeled, because they relate a position to the absence of another.
Open questions for the founding coordinators¶
- Placement. Option A or Option B? (The central question.)
- Action types. How should a position indicate the conduct it concerns? Options: (a) a relation to a plan specification or directive information content entity, following IAO and CCO; (b) a relation to a process universal via OWL punning; (c) a relation to a process profile. Each has costs for reasoning.
- Realizability. Should duties, liberties, and powers be treated as realizable entities, realized in compliance, in acting, and in the exercise of the power? This is available only under Option A.
- Should correlatives be modeled as parts of a single relational whole (a legal relation between two parties), rather than as two linked positions?
Related patterns¶
- LOF-ODP-001 supplies legal content (grounding) and legal act (exercise of powers).
- LOF-ODP-002: conferring a legal role is typically the exercise of a power, and a role is typically specified by the positions its holder acquires.