Class Hierarchy
- Thing
- ↳ entity (bfo)
- ↳ continuant (bfo)
- ↳ generically dependent continuant (bfo)
- ↳ information content entity (iao)
- ↳ directive information entity (iao)
- ↳ Constraint
- ↳ Competence Constraint (proethica-intermediate)
- ↳ Confidentiality Constraint (proethica-intermediate)
- ↳ Ethical Constraint (proethica-intermediate)
- ↳ Jurisdictional Constraint (proethica-intermediate)
- ↳ Legal Constraint (proethica-intermediate)
- ↳ Procedural Constraint (proethica-intermediate)
- ↳ Regulatory Constraint (proethica-intermediate)
- ↳ Resource Constraint (proethica-intermediate)
- ↳ Safety Constraint (proethica-intermediate)
- ↳ Temporal Constraint (proethica-intermediate)
Definition
A directive information entity (IAO) that prescribes a boundary on professional conduct by specifying a prohibited action, or the outer limit of the permissible-action space, that a bearer of the relevant role must not cross. Whereas an Obligation prescribes an action that is required and a Principle expresses an abstract value or aim, a Constraint carries the prohibition/boundary deontic modality, foreclosing a region of action-space rather than mandating an act or orienting toward a good. A Constraint is established by a source provision and ranges in force from an inviolable prohibition to a defeasible default that tolerates justified exceptions under specified circumstances. This is the Cs component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,Rs,A,E,Ca,Cs).
A directive information entity expressing limitations or restrictions on professional actions or decisions. Constraints prescribe boundaries on permissible conduct. This is the Cs component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,Rs,A,E,Ca,Cs).
Scope note
The constraint TYPE is defined by the prohibition or boundary it states and its source provision, not by who it binds in a given case or how a defeasible exception is resolved; the constrained party, per-occasion applicability, and any exception narrative attach to the case individual and edges, not to the class.
Editor note
The Constraint type (Cs) is individuated by the boundary it states and its source provision, not by the party it binds in a given case or by how a defeasible exception is resolved. Grounded in the Chapter 2 boundary literature: constraints establish the negative behavioral limits that determine the permissible action space (Arkin 2008; Arkin et al. 2012, where prohibition constraints are evaluated first and a failing constraint suppresses the behavior), they are specified as prohibited actions under temporal and contextual conditions, the specification of abstract principles into precise context-dependent constraints (Dennis et al. 2016), and they operate as default rules that retain a general prohibition while tolerating justified exceptions in extraordinary circumstances (Ganascia 2007), and their formal verification is enabled by deontic-logic encodings of normative theories (Benzmüller et al. 2020). Extraction discipline: type a 'must not / may not / is barred from / is prohibited from' statement, or a statement of an outer limit on the action space, as a Constraint. Redirect any positive 'was required to / shall / must do' statement to the Obligation pass and any abstract value or aim to the Principle pass. boundary_type is a routing input that drives the subClassOf typing into one of the ten closed boundary-type classes and is not stored as a literal. severity is retained as a genuine attribute (Dennis severity ordering). The intrinsic hard/soft/negotiable flexibility of a single constraint is distinct from the extrinsic competition between two obligations, which is carried by the defeasibility object properties declared on Obligation, not here. A provision the code states negatively (shall not X) is extracted once, as a Constraint. The Obligation pass records only a separately stated positive duty and cross-references the constraint rather than restating the prohibition.
Definition source
- Arkin (2008). Governing lethal behavior: embedding ethics in a hybrid deliberative/reactive robot architecture. HRI 2008: 121-128 (doi:10.1145/1349822.1349839).
- Ganascia (2007). Modelling ethical rules of lying with Answer Set Programming. Ethics and Information Technology 9(1): 39-47 (doi:10.1007/s10676-006-9134-y).
- Dennis et al. (2016). Formal verification of ethical choices in autonomous systems. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 77: 1-14 (doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.11.012).
- Benzmüller et al. (2020). Designing normative theories for ethical and legal reasoning: LogiKEy framework, methodology, and tool support. Artificial Intelligence 287: 103348 (doi:10.1016/j.artint.2020.103348).
Mappings & provenance
source
source
source
source
Properties
Relationships
Asserted object-property edges to other entities. Logical class axioms such as
owl:disjointWith are shown separately below.
componentOf
D Tuple Framework
Disjoint with
Action, Agent, Capability, Event, Obligation, Principle, Resource, Role, State
From
owl:disjointWith and owl:AllDisjointClasses membership; the listed classes are pairwise disjoint with this one.Property Structure
1 · Object and Data Properties
rdfs:domain on this class or ancestor
| Property | Range | Description |
|---|---|---|
| constrainedEntity | Agent | Relates a Constraint to the Agent whose conduct it limits in the case scenario. Distinct from constrainedBy (Action -> Constraint), which records that an action is subject to a constraint. |
| establishedBy | CodeProvision | Indicates which code provision establishes this ethical concept. |
2 · Definitional Attributes
SHACL definitional shape
| Attribute | Property (sh:path) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| boundary type | boundaryType | The controlled boundary type, which drives the subClassOf typing into one of the ten closed boundary-type classes: LegalConstraint, RegulatoryConstraint, ResourceConstraint, CompetenceConstraint, JurisdictionalConstraint, ProceduralConstraint, EthicalConstraint, SafetyConstraint, ConfidentialityConstraint, TemporalConstraint. The prohibition/boundary content that individuates the type. A routing input, not stored as a literal. |
| established by | establishedBy | The source CodeProvision that establishes the constraint, via the establishedBy edge. The second type-individuating coordinate: per the scopeNote a constraint type is the boundary it states plus its source provision. Range: CodeProvision. |
3 · Bearer Attributes
SHACL property shape
individual data
| Attribute | Property (sh:path) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| severity | severity | The severity of the constraint in this case (critical, high, medium, low); a per-occasion assessment (Dennis severity ordering) that can differ across cases sharing the same boundary. |
| applicability condition | applicabilityCondition | The situational TRIGGER: the circumstances under which the prohibition applies in this case (the Dennis specification-by-context condition); temporalScope carries the durational window. |
| constrained entity | constrainedEntity | The agent whose conduct the constraint limits, via the outgoing constrainedEntity edge. Range: Agent. |
| temporal scope | temporalScope | The durational WINDOW during which the boundary is in force in this case (e.g. for the duration of the engagement); applicabilityCondition carries the situational trigger under which it applies. |
| source | source | The provision or authority string as extracted, kept verbatim on the individual; each dotted NSPE designation that resolves against the provision registry is also materialized as the establishedBy edge (a non-code source survives only in this literal). |
| constraint statement | constraintStatement | The operative must-not clause, kept verbatim; mirrors skos:definition and is one of the narrative source fields the defeasibility harvest reads from committed TTLs. |
4 · Referenced By
rdfs:range on this class or ancestor
| From | Property | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Action | constrainedBy | Relates an action to constraints that limit or restrict it. The ratified D1 producer (an Action-pass action_constraints field resolved to this edge) shipped without its emitter; the edge is reserved with the Action-side enrichment family (usesResource pattern) and the producer lands with the Step-4 enrichment or the 119 rebuild. Do not deprecate on the zero-use test. |
| Code Provision | establishes | Relates a code provision to the ethical concepts (principles, obligations, constraints) it establishes or defines. |
| State | activatesConstraint | Relates a State to a Constraint that the obtaining of the State activates, bounding the actions available to the role-bearers the state concerns (the S->Cs linkage). |
Used in cases 118
Case ontologies that instantiate this class or one of its base-ontology descendants. Computed from each individual's type, so the list stays current as cases are extracted. The originating case is shown under Extraction details.
Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 10 Case 11 Case 12 Case 13 Case 14 Case 15 Case 16 Case 17 Case 18 Case 19 Case 20 Case 22 Case 56 Case 57 Case 58 Case 60 Case 71 Case 72 Case 73 Case 74 Case 75 Case 76 Case 77 Case 78 Case 79 Case 82 Case 83 Case 84 Case 85 Case 86 Case 87 Case 88 Case 89 Case 90 Case 91 Case 92 Case 93 Case 94 Case 96 Case 97 Case 98 Case 99 Case 100 Case 102 Case 103 Case 104 Case 105 Case 106 Case 107 Case 108 Case 109 Case 110 Case 111 Case 112 Case 113 Case 114 Case 116 Case 117 Case 118 Case 120 Case 121 Case 123 Case 124 Case 125 Case 126 Case 127 Case 128 Case 129 Case 130 Case 131 Case 132 Case 133 Case 134 Case 135 Case 136 Case 137 Case 139 Case 140 Case 141 Case 142 Case 143 Case 144 Case 145 Case 146 Case 147 Case 148 Case 149 Case 150 Case 151 Case 157 Case 158 Case 160 Case 161 Case 162 Case 163 Case 164 Case 165 Case 166 Case 167 Case 168 Case 169 Case 170 Case 171 Case 172 Case 173 Case 174 Case 175 Case 176 Case 177 Case 178 Case 179 Case 181@prefix core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix iao: <http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix pcsh: <http://proethica.org/shapes/core#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix sh: <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#> .
@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
pcsh:CaseAnnotationShape a sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label "Shared per-case annotation schema (all nine components)"@en ;
rdfs:comment "The cross-component annotation fields on committed case individuals: proeth:confidence (extraction confidence, decimal; all components except Action, whose Step-3 contract carries no confidence field), proeth:textReferences (verbatim supporting quotes, universal), proeth-prov sourceText (the source snippet, on the Step-1/2 provenance layers; Step-3 A/E individuals ground via textReferences only), and the involvement gloss (proeth:caseInvolvement on role individuals, proeth:caseContext on obligation, capability, and constraint individuals). Values are per-individual; the fields do not individuate any type."@en ;
sh:property [ sh:description "Extraction confidence for this individual (0 to 1)." ;
sh:name "confidence" ;
sh:order 1 ;
sh:path proeth:confidence ],
[ sh:description "Verbatim case quotes supporting this individual." ;
sh:name "text references" ;
sh:order 2 ;
sh:path proeth:textReferences ],
[ sh:description "How this individual figures in the case narrative (role individuals; the same text is routed into rdfs:comment)." ;
sh:name "case involvement" ;
sh:order 3 ;
sh:path proeth:caseInvolvement ],
[ sh:description "Grounding context in this case (obligation, capability, and constraint individuals)." ;
sh:name "case context" ;
sh:order 4 ;
sh:path proeth:caseContext ] ;
sh:targetClass core:Action,
core:Capability,
core:Constraint,
core:Event,
core:Obligation,
core:Principle,
core:Resource,
core:Role,
core:State .
pcsh:ConstraintDefinitionShape a sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label "Constraint definition schema (type-level, descriptive, field contract)"@en ;
rdfs:comment "What individuates a constraint TYPE: the boundary it states (boundary_type, which drives the subClassOf typing into one of the ten closed boundary-type classes) and the source provision that establishes it. The per-case severity and applicability, the agent it limits, and the action it bounds are per-individual and declared on ConstraintPropertyShape, mirroring the R/P/O/S/Rs/Ca Definition/Property split and the constraint scopeNote (the TYPE is the prohibition plus its source provision; the constrained party, per-occasion applicability, and any exception attach to the case individual). Descriptive only (no validation result); the routing input is the constraint_type schema field (the boundaryType property is its shape-path anchor), not stored as a literal."@en ;
sh:property [ sh:description "The controlled boundary type, which drives the subClassOf typing into one of the ten closed boundary-type classes: LegalConstraint, RegulatoryConstraint, ResourceConstraint, CompetenceConstraint, JurisdictionalConstraint, ProceduralConstraint, EthicalConstraint, SafetyConstraint, ConfidentialityConstraint, TemporalConstraint. The prohibition/boundary content that individuates the type. A routing input, not stored as a literal." ;
sh:name "boundary type" ;
sh:order 1 ;
sh:path proeth:boundaryType ],
[ pcsh:informationalOnly true ;
sh:description "The source CodeProvision that establishes the constraint, via the establishedBy edge. The second type-individuating coordinate: per the scopeNote a constraint type is the boundary it states plus its source provision. Range: CodeProvision." ;
sh:name "established by" ;
sh:order 2 ;
sh:path core:establishedBy ] ;
sh:targetClass core:Constraint .
pcsh:ConstraintPropertyShape a sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label "Constraint per-case schema (individual data, non-definitional)"@en ;
rdfs:comment "What a given constraint INDIVIDUAL is described by in a specific case: its per-occasion severity and applicability window, the agent whose conduct it limits, and the action it bounds. These do NOT individuate the constraint TYPE (that is ConstraintDefinitionShape, keyed on the boundary it states and its source provision); their values are per-case, asserted on the individual. Descriptive only."@en ;
sh:property [ sh:description "The severity of the constraint in this case (critical, high, medium, low); a per-occasion assessment (Dennis severity ordering) that can differ across cases sharing the same boundary." ;
sh:name "severity" ;
sh:order 1 ;
sh:path proeth:severity ],
[ sh:description "The situational TRIGGER: the circumstances under which the prohibition applies in this case (the Dennis specification-by-context condition); temporalScope carries the durational window." ;
sh:name "applicability condition" ;
sh:order 2 ;
sh:path proeth:applicabilityCondition ],
[ sh:description "The agent whose conduct the constraint limits, via the outgoing constrainedEntity edge. Range: Agent." ;
sh:name "constrained entity" ;
sh:order 3 ;
sh:path core:constrainedEntity ],
[ sh:description "The durational WINDOW during which the boundary is in force in this case (e.g. for the duration of the engagement); applicabilityCondition carries the situational trigger under which it applies." ;
sh:name "temporal scope" ;
sh:order 4 ;
sh:path proeth:temporalScope ],
[ sh:description "The provision or authority string as extracted, kept verbatim on the individual; each dotted NSPE designation that resolves against the provision registry is also materialized as the establishedBy edge (a non-code source survives only in this literal)." ;
sh:name "source" ;
sh:order 5 ;
sh:path proeth:source ],
[ sh:description "The operative must-not clause, kept verbatim; mirrors skos:definition and is one of the narrative source fields the defeasibility harvest reads from committed TTLs." ;
sh:name "constraint statement" ;
sh:order 6 ;
sh:path proeth:constraintStatement ] ;
sh:targetClass core:Constraint .
core:Constraint a owl:Class ;
rdfs:label "Constraint"@en ;
core:componentOf core:DTupleFramework ;
core:dtupleComponent "Cs" ;
iao:0000115 "A directive information entity (IAO) that prescribes a boundary on professional conduct by specifying a prohibited action, or the outer limit of the permissible-action space, that a bearer of the relevant role must not cross. Whereas an Obligation prescribes an action that is required and a Principle expresses an abstract value or aim, a Constraint carries the prohibition/boundary deontic modality, foreclosing a region of action-space rather than mandating an act or orienting toward a good. A Constraint is established by a source provision and ranges in force from an inviolable prohibition to a defeasible default that tolerates justified exceptions under specified circumstances. This is the Cs component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,Rs,A,E,Ca,Cs)."@en ;
iao:0000116 "The Constraint type (Cs) is individuated by the boundary it states and its source provision, not by the party it binds in a given case or by how a defeasible exception is resolved. Grounded in the Chapter 2 boundary literature: constraints establish the negative behavioral limits that determine the permissible action space (Arkin 2008; Arkin et al. 2012, where prohibition constraints are evaluated first and a failing constraint suppresses the behavior), they are specified as prohibited actions under temporal and contextual conditions, the specification of abstract principles into precise context-dependent constraints (Dennis et al. 2016), and they operate as default rules that retain a general prohibition while tolerating justified exceptions in extraordinary circumstances (Ganascia 2007), and their formal verification is enabled by deontic-logic encodings of normative theories (Benzmüller et al. 2020). Extraction discipline: type a 'must not / may not / is barred from / is prohibited from' statement, or a statement of an outer limit on the action space, as a Constraint. Redirect any positive 'was required to / shall / must do' statement to the Obligation pass and any abstract value or aim to the Principle pass. boundary_type is a routing input that drives the subClassOf typing into one of the ten closed boundary-type classes and is not stored as a literal. severity is retained as a genuine attribute (Dennis severity ordering). The intrinsic hard/soft/negotiable flexibility of a single constraint is distinct from the extrinsic competition between two obligations, which is carried by the defeasibility object properties declared on Obligation, not here. A provision the code states negatively (shall not X) is extracted once, as a Constraint. The Obligation pass records only a separately stated positive duty and cross-references the constraint rather than restating the prohibition."@en ;
iao:0000119 "Arkin (2008). Governing lethal behavior: embedding ethics in a hybrid deliberative/reactive robot architecture. HRI 2008: 121-128 (doi:10.1145/1349822.1349839).",
"Benzmüller et al. (2020). Designing normative theories for ethical and legal reasoning: LogiKEy framework, methodology, and tool support. Artificial Intelligence 287: 103348 (doi:10.1016/j.artint.2020.103348).",
"Dennis et al. (2016). Formal verification of ethical choices in autonomous systems. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 77: 1-14 (doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.11.012).",
"Ganascia (2007). Modelling ethical rules of lying with Answer Set Programming. Ethics and Information Technology 9(1): 39-47 (doi:10.1007/s10676-006-9134-y)." ;
dcterms:source <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-9134-y>,
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2020.103348>,
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.11.012>,
<https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349839> ;
rdfs:comment "A directive information entity expressing limitations or restrictions on professional actions or decisions. Constraints prescribe boundaries on permissible conduct. This is the Cs component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,Rs,A,E,Ca,Cs)."@en ;
rdfs:subClassOf iao:0000033 ;
skos:changeNote "v2.3.0: Refined from IAO:information content entity to IAO:directive information entity. Constraints define the permissible space of action through negative behavioral limits (Arkin 2008) and prohibitions specifying what must not be done (Ganascia 2007). Their specification of prohibited actions under temporal and contextual conditions (Dennis et al. 2016) constitutes directive content."@en ;
skos:scopeNote "The constraint TYPE is defined by the prohibition or boundary it states and its source provision, not by who it binds in a given case or how a defeasible exception is resolved; the constrained party, per-occasion applicability, and any exception narrative attach to the case individual and edges, not to the class."@en .