DP5
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#DP5
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP5
Decision question
Should the ethical standards governing Engineer A and Engineer B's CADD document sealing be determined by applying existing code provisions to CADD as a new technology, or does CADD use require the development of distinct supplemental standards beyond those currently in the code?
Focus
The case raises the question of whether prevailing professional practice standards, as understood by the BER, adequately address the use of CADD technology in the preparation and sealing of engineering documents, or whether existing code provisions require reinterpretation or supplementation to govern CADD use.
Option1
Evaluate Engineer A and Engineer B's conduct under existing competence, responsible charge, and non-substitution principles, treating CADD as a new instance of a recurring question about technology adoption rather than a category requiring new rules.
Option2
Recommend that the profession develop supplemental guidance specifically addressing CADD proficiency thresholds, review protocols, and sealing responsibilities, treating CADD as sufficiently distinct from prior drafting technologies to warrant dedicated standards.
Option3
Treat CADD-specific sealing requirements as a matter for state licensing boards to address through regulation, applying the NSPE code only to the underlying engineering judgment obligations while deferring technology-specific rules to regulatory bodies.
Role
Engineer
TTL
@prefix case120: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
case120:DP5 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP5" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP5" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should the ethical standards governing Engineer A and Engineer B's CADD document sealing be determined by applying existing code provisions to CADD as a new technology, or does CADD use require the development of distinct supplemental standards beyond those currently in the code?" ;
proeth:focus "The case raises the question of whether prevailing professional practice standards, as understood by the BER, adequately address the use of CADD technology in the preparation and sealing of engineering documents, or whether existing code provisions require reinterpretation or supplementation to govern CADD use." ;
proeth:option1 "Evaluate Engineer A and Engineer B's conduct under existing competence, responsible charge, and non-substitution principles, treating CADD as a new instance of a recurring question about technology adoption rather than a category requiring new rules." ;
proeth:option2 "Recommend that the profession develop supplemental guidance specifically addressing CADD proficiency thresholds, review protocols, and sealing responsibilities, treating CADD as sufficiently distinct from prior drafting technologies to warrant dedicated standards." ;
proeth:option3 "Treat CADD-specific sealing requirements as a matter for state licensing boards to address through regulation, applying the NSPE code only to the underlying engineering judgment obligations while deferring technology-specific rules to regulatory bodies." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:wasAttributedTo "claude-sonnet-4-6" ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 120 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Attributed to
claude-sonnet-4-6
Generated by
ProEthica Case 120 Extraction