Attribution and Credit Principle
Class
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#AttributionandCreditPrinciple
Class Hierarchy
- Thing
- ↳ entity (bfo)
- ↳ continuant (bfo)
- ↳ generically dependent continuant (bfo)
- ↳ information content entity (iao)
- ↳ directive information entity (iao)
- ↳ Principle (proethica-core)
- ↳ Professional Virtue Principle (proethica-intermediate)
- ↳ Attribution and Credit Principle
Definition
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to give appropriate credit for contributions to their work products, including contributions from AI tools, automated systems, or other non-engineer sources that substantially shaped the content or design, so that recipients can accurately assess the provenance and intellectual basis of the work.
Case Provenance
Discovered in
This class was discovered during extraction of the case(s) above; the supporting verbatim quotes are in Source Evidence.
Properties
Abstract Nature
Requires interpretation of what constitutes a substantial contribution warranting attribution, and how attribution norms developed for human contributors extend to non-human automated tools.
Confidence
0.85
Derived Obligations
Cite technical sources referenced or synthesized by AI tools
Disclose AI contributions to clients when those contributions substantially shaped the work
Ensure AI-generated content does not obscure the provenance of underlying technical authority
Extensional Examples
BER Case 98-3 requirement that engineers acknowledge significant contributions by others
Engineer A failing to include citations of pertinent documents of technical authority in AI-generated report
NSPE Code section III.9 requiring credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due
Operationalization
Requires engineers to disclose when AI tools substantially contributed to a work product, to cite authoritative sources referenced or synthesized by AI, and to ensure the work product accurately represents its intellectual origins.
Potential Conflicts
AI Tool Disclosure Principle
Client confidentiality regarding tool selection
Intellectual Honesty in Authorship Principle
Principle Category
professional_virtue
Value Basis
Accurate attribution preserves the integrity of the professional record, enables quality assessment by clients and reviewers, and respects the intellectual contributions of others including the developers of tools that generate substantive content.
Property Structure
1 · Object and Data Properties
rdfs:domain on this class or ancestor
| Property | Range | Description |
|---|---|---|
| establishedBy inherited | CodeProvision | Indicates which code provision establishes this ethical concept. |
| invokedBy inherited | Agent | Relates a Principle to the Agent(s) that invoke it in the case scenario (the parties who appeal to the principle to justify or evaluate conduct). May name several agents. |
2 · Definitional Attributes
SHACL definitional shape
| Attribute | Property (sh:path) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| principle kind | principleCategory | The controlled principle kind, which drives the four-kind subClassOf typing: FundamentalEthicalPrinciple, ProfessionalVirtuePrinciple, RelationalPrinciple, DomainSpecificPrinciple. The canonical leaf label becomes the rdf:type; the category is a routing input, not stored as a literal. |
| extensional cases | extensionalCases | Class-level prior cases that instantiate the principle (McLaren extensional grounding); an optional class-mint field. |
3 · Bearer Attributes
SHACL property shape
individual data
| Attribute | Property (sh:path) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| interpretation | interpretation | Per-case reading of what the principle requires in this situation (a defeasibility-pipeline source field). |
| concrete expression | concreteExpression | How the principle is concretely expressed in the case (a defeasibility-pipeline source field). |
| applied to | appliedTo | What the principle is applied to in the case (the situation or party it bears on). |
| balancing with | balancingWith | The competing principle or value this principle is balanced against in the case, recorded as a literal; extraction records the tension but asserts no defeat or precedence, and the defeasibility edges are materialized by a separate pass from this field. |
| tension resolution | tensionResolution | How the case resolves the tension involving this principle (a defeasibility-pipeline source field). |
| invoked by | invokedBy | The agent who invokes the principle, via the P->Agent invokedBy edge (resolved to a case Agent by embedding shortlist + LLM select; a Board-pattern invoking party resolves deterministically to the case-scoped NSPE Board of Ethical Review Agent). Range: Agent. |
4 · Referenced By
rdfs:range on this class or ancestor
| From | Property | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Action | guidedByPrinciple inherited | Relates an action to a principle that directs it. The principle supplies the value the action is taken to serve. |
| Code Provision | establishes inherited | Relates a code provision to the ethical concepts (principles, obligations, constraints) it establishes or defines. |
| Obligation | derivedFromPrinciple inherited | Relates an obligation to the principle or principles it operationalizes. The obligation gives concrete directive force to the more abstract value the principle expresses (Dennis et al. 2016). |
| Role | adheresToPrinciple inherited | Relates a role to principles that guide its conduct; the role-relative applicability edge of the R->P->O chain (the role determines which principles apply to conduct in that standing). |
Source Evidence
Text references
BER Case 98-3 emphasized that engineers must acknowledge significant contributions by others. AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9.
Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,' so Engineer A's ethical use of the AI software would need to include appropriate citations.
The facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority.
Source text
Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,' so Engineer A's ethical use of the AI software would need to include appropriate citations.
@prefix core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix pcsh: <http://proethica.org/shapes/core#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-prov: <http://proethica.org/provenance#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@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#> .
proeth:AttributionandCreditPrinciple a owl:Class ;
rdfs:label "Attribution and Credit Principle" ;
proeth:abstractNature "Requires interpretation of what constitutes a substantial contribution warranting attribution, and how attribution norms developed for human contributors extend to non-human automated tools." ;
proeth:confidence "0.85" ;
proeth:derivedObligations "Cite technical sources referenced or synthesized by AI tools",
"Disclose AI contributions to clients when those contributions substantially shaped the work",
"Ensure AI-generated content does not obscure the provenance of underlying technical authority" ;
proeth:extensionalExamples "BER Case 98-3 requirement that engineers acknowledge significant contributions by others",
"Engineer A failing to include citations of pertinent documents of technical authority in AI-generated report",
"NSPE Code section III.9 requiring credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due" ;
proeth:operationalization "Requires engineers to disclose when AI tools substantially contributed to a work product, to cite authoritative sources referenced or synthesized by AI, and to ensure the work product accurately represents its intellectual origins." ;
proeth:potentialConflicts "AI Tool Disclosure Principle",
"Client confidentiality regarding tool selection",
"Intellectual Honesty in Authorship Principle" ;
proeth:principleCategory "professional_virtue" ;
proeth:textReferences "BER Case 98-3 emphasized that engineers must acknowledge significant contributions by others. AI, while not a human contributor, fundamentally shaped the report and design documents, warranting disclosure under Code section III.9.",
"Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,' so Engineer A's ethical use of the AI software would need to include appropriate citations.",
"The facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority." ;
proeth:valueBasis "Accurate attribution preserves the integrity of the professional record, enables quality assessment by clients and reviewers, and respects the intellectual contributions of others including the developers of tools that generate substantive content." ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInCase 7 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInPass 2 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInSection "discussion" ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredAt "2026-06-03T14:08:23.434917+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredInCase 7 ;
proeth-prov:matchConfidence 0.0 ;
proeth-prov:matchesExisting false ;
proeth-prov:sourceText "Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,' so Engineer A's ethical use of the AI software would need to include appropriate citations." ;
rdfs:comment "Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to give appropriate credit for contributions to their work products, including contributions from AI tools, automated systems, or other non-engineer sources that substantially shaped the content or design, so that recipients can accurately assess the provenance and intellectual basis of the work." ;
rdfs:subClassOf proeth:ProfessionalVirtuePrinciple ;
skos:definition "Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to give appropriate credit for contributions to their work products, including contributions from AI tools, automated systems, or other non-engineer sources that substantially shaped the content or design, so that recipients can accurately assess the provenance and intellectual basis of the work." ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-06-03T14:08:23.434917+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasAttributedTo "Case 7 Extraction",
"claude-sonnet-4-6" .
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:PrincipleDefinitionShape a sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label "Principle definition schema (type-level, descriptive, field contract)"@en ;
rdfs:comment "What individuates a principle TYPE: its canonical kind (drives the four-kind subClassOf typing; the canonical leaf becomes the rdf:type) and the extensional cases that ground it (McLaren). The five per-case narrative literals and the invokedBy edge are per-individual and now declared on PrinciplePropertyShape, mirroring the RoleDefinitionShape/ProfessionalRolePropertyShape split so the {{ principle_schema }} prompt separates the type judgment from what the case supplies. Descriptive only (no validation result); principle_category is a routing input, not stored as a literal."@en ;
sh:property [ sh:description "The controlled principle kind, which drives the four-kind subClassOf typing: FundamentalEthicalPrinciple, ProfessionalVirtuePrinciple, RelationalPrinciple, DomainSpecificPrinciple. The canonical leaf label becomes the rdf:type; the category is a routing input, not stored as a literal." ;
sh:name "principle kind" ;
sh:order 1 ;
sh:path proeth:principleCategory ],
[ sh:description "Class-level prior cases that instantiate the principle (McLaren extensional grounding); an optional class-mint field." ;
sh:name "extensional cases" ;
sh:order 2 ;
sh:path proeth:extensionalCases ] ;
sh:targetClass core:Principle .
pcsh:PrinciplePropertyShape a sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label "Principle per-case schema (individual data, non-definitional)"@en ;
rdfs:comment "What a principle INDIVIDUAL is described by in a specific case: the five narrative literals the defeasibility pipeline consumes and the agent that invokes it. These do NOT individuate the principle TYPE (that is PrincipleDefinitionShape); their values are per-case, asserted on the individual. Descriptive only."@en ;
sh:property [ sh:description "Per-case reading of what the principle requires in this situation (a defeasibility-pipeline source field)." ;
sh:name "interpretation" ;
sh:order 1 ;
sh:path proeth:interpretation ],
[ sh:description "How the principle is concretely expressed in the case (a defeasibility-pipeline source field)." ;
sh:name "concrete expression" ;
sh:order 2 ;
sh:path proeth:concreteExpression ],
[ sh:description "What the principle is applied to in the case (the situation or party it bears on)." ;
sh:name "applied to" ;
sh:order 3 ;
sh:path proeth:appliedTo ],
[ sh:description "The competing principle or value this principle is balanced against in the case, recorded as a literal; extraction records the tension but asserts no defeat or precedence, and the defeasibility edges are materialized by a separate pass from this field." ;
sh:name "balancing with" ;
sh:order 4 ;
sh:path proeth:balancingWith ],
[ sh:description "How the case resolves the tension involving this principle (a defeasibility-pipeline source field)." ;
sh:name "tension resolution" ;
sh:order 5 ;
sh:path proeth:tensionResolution ],
[ sh:description "The agent who invokes the principle, via the P->Agent invokedBy edge (resolved to a case Agent by embedding shortlist + LLM select; a Board-pattern invoking party resolves deterministically to the case-scoped NSPE Board of Ethical Review Agent). Range: Agent." ;
sh:name "invoked by" ;
sh:order 6 ;
sh:path core:invokedBy ] ;
sh:targetClass core:Principle .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
7
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-06-03T14:08:23.434917+00:00
First case
7
Match Confidence
0.0
Matches Existing
false
Generated
2026-06-03T14:08:23.434917+00:00
Attributed to
['Case 7 Extraction', 'claude-sonnet-4-6']