Competence Recognition Principle

@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:CompetenceRecognitionPrinciple a owl:Class ; rdfs:label "Competence Recognition Principle" ; proeth:abstractNature "Principle requiring ongoing self-assessment of technical capability relative to assigned tasks, and affirmative escalation when a mismatch is identified, rather than passive acceptance of assignments beyond one's competence." ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:derivedObligations "Assess own competence before accepting or performing assigned tasks", "Ensure appropriately qualified engineers perform tasks requiring competence the assigned engineer lacks", "Notify supervisors when assigned tasks exceed competence" ; proeth:extensionalExamples "BER case involving Engineer B who approved incomplete dam design drawings without apparent recognition of or response to the limits of the review competence required" ; proeth:operationalization "Requires engineers to assess whether they possess the knowledge and skill to perform assigned tasks, to disclose limitations to supervisors when they do not, and to ensure that appropriately qualified personnel perform work that exceeds their competence." ; proeth:potentialConflicts "Employer loyalty", "Faithful Agent Duty Principle" ; proeth:principleCategory "professional_virtue" ; proeth:textReferences "Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence", "If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review", "Not possessing adequate competency to perform a task is not in and of itself a violation of the NSPE Code, but the failure to recognize the lack of competency and take appropriate action to address the situation is a violation of the NSPE Code" ; proeth:valueBasis "Professional integrity, protection of the public from work product that has not received genuinely competent review, and honest representation of one's professional capabilities." ; proeth-prov:discoveredInCase 85 ; proeth-prov:discoveredInPass 2 ; proeth-prov:discoveredInSection "discussion" ; proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredAt "2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ; proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredInCase 85 ; proeth-prov:matchConfidence 0.78 ; proeth-prov:matchReasoning "The Competence Principle in the ontology balances professional autonomy with recognition of limitations and need for collaboration, which encompasses the self-assessment and escalation obligations described here. This is a variant that emphasizes the affirmative duty to recognize and act on competence limits rather than simply maintaining competence, but the parent class is the appropriate match. Confidence is 0.78 because the ontology class is broader and this individual instantiation has a specific emphasis on the recognition-and-escalation duty." ; proeth-prov:matchedOntologyClass proeth:CompetencePrinciple ; proeth-prov:matchedOntologyLabel "Competence Principle" ; proeth-prov:matchesExisting true ; proeth-prov:sourceText "Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence" ; rdfs:comment "Professional principle requiring engineers to recognize the limits of their own competence and to take affirmative action when assigned tasks that exceed those limits, including notifying supervisors so that appropriately qualified personnel can be assigned. Lacking competence to perform a task is not itself a violation of professional standards, but failing to recognize that limitation and proceeding without remediation is a violation." ; rdfs:subClassOf proeth:ProfessionalVirtuePrinciple ; skos:definition "Professional principle requiring engineers to recognize the limits of their own competence and to take affirmative action when assigned tasks that exceed those limits, including notifying supervisors so that appropriately qualified personnel can be assigned. Lacking competence to perform a task is not itself a violation of professional standards, but failing to recognize that limitation and proceeding without remediation is a violation." ; skos:scopeNote "[CompetencePrinciple] Balances professional autonomy with recognition of limitations and need for collaboration." ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-06-04T16:53:07.457315+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasAttributedTo "Case 85 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 .