Overview
Provenance Draft

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 120: Use Of Cadd System

21 entities 5 actions 5 events 6 causal chains 4 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 10 sequenced markers
Strict Sealing Standard Ruling 1986, BER Case 86-2
Professional Controversy Emergence 1986, shortly after BER Case 86-2 ruling
Delegated Work Sealing Current case
Technology Adoption Decision Historical past, prior to current case
Precedent Clarification Ruling Current case ruling
Technology Evolution Historical period through present case
Standard Conflict Identified Current case, prior to BER deliberation
Community Practice Normalization Current case, upon issuance of BER ruling
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 4 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
CAD adoption time:intervalBefore CADD adoption
manual design techniques era time:intervalBefore CAD adoption
CADD adoption time:intervalBefore Artificial Intelligence (AI) adoption
Engineer A and Engineer B CADD usage time:intervalDuring current case decision period
Extracted Actions (5)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineers and firms across the profession transition from manual drafting to CAD and then to CADD, incorporating computer-assisted tools into standard professional practice.

Temporal Marker: Historical past, prior to current case interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • CADD Dependency Risk
  • New Competency Standard Required
Terminates (1)
  • Manual Drafting as Standard Practice

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Improve efficiency and accuracy of design and drafting through technological advancement

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Risk that CADD becomes a crutch replacing professional judgment
  • Potential liability from over-reliance on system outputs not fully understood by the engineer
Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Professional Competence
Guided By Principles:
  • Professional Accountability
  • Understanding of CADD Limitations
Required Capabilities:
CADD system proficiency Awareness of technology limitations Engineering judgment independent of system outputs
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Professional Accountability; Understanding of CADD Limitations
  • initiates: CADD Dependency Risk; New Competency Standard Required
  • terminates: Manual Drafting as Standard Practice
  • raisesObligation: Professional Competence
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineers and firms across the profession transition from manual drafting to CAD and then to CADD, incorporating computer-assisted tools into standard professional practice.
  • hasAgent content: Engineering Profession
  • temporalMarker content: Historical past, prior to current case
  • eventRoleContext content: Collective Professional Decision
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Improve efficiency and accuracy of design and drafting through technological advancement
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Risk that CADD becomes a crutch replacing professional judgment; Potential liability from over-reliance on system outputs not fully understood by the engineer
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • requiresCapability: CADD system proficiency; Awareness of technology limitations; Engineering judgment independent of system outputs
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Technology_Adoption_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "Engineers and firms across the profession transition from manual drafting to CAD and then to CADD, incorporating computer-assisted tools into standard professional practice.",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Collective Professional Decision",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Risk that CADD becomes a crutch replacing professional judgment",
    "Potential liability from over-reliance on system outputs not fully understood by the engineer"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional Accountability",
    "Understanding of CADD Limitations"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineering Profession",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "CADD Dependency Risk",
    "New Competency Standard Required"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Improve efficiency and accuracy of design and drafting through technological advancement",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Professional Competence"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "CADD system proficiency",
    "Awareness of technology limitations",
    "Engineering judgment independent of system outputs"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Historical past, prior to current case",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Manual Drafting as Standard Practice"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Technology Adoption Decision"
}

Description: In BER Case 86-2, the Board ruled it unethical for a chief engineer to seal plans not personally prepared or thoroughly checked in detail, applying a strict literal interpretation of the terms direction and control.

Temporal Marker: 1986, BER Case 86-2 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Strict Personal Preparation Standard Held
  • Community Controversy Over Standard

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Enforce rigorous personal accountability for sealed documents and protect the public from inadequately reviewed engineering work

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Ruling may conflict with prevailing large-firm practice and impose an impossible standard on practitioners
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (3)
  • Responsible Charge
  • Personal Preparation
  • Public Protection
Guided By Principles:
  • Direction and Control
  • Code Compliance
  • Professional Accountability
Required Capabilities:
Ethical interpretation of Code language Understanding of engineering practice norms
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Responsible Charge; Personal Preparation; Public Protection
  • guidedByPrinciple: Direction and Control; Code Compliance; Professional Accountability
  • initiates: Strict Personal Preparation Standard Held; Community Controversy Over Standard
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 86-2, the Board ruled it unethical for a chief engineer to seal plans not personally prepared or thoroughly checked in detail, applying a strict literal interpretation of the terms direction and control.
  • hasAgent content: Board of Ethical Review (BER), BER Case 86-2
  • temporalMarker content: 1986, BER Case 86-2
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Enforce rigorous personal accountability for sealed documents and protect the public from inadequately reviewed engineering work
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Ruling may conflict with prevailing large-firm practice and impose an impossible standard on practitioners
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • requiresCapability: Ethical interpretation of Code language; Understanding of engineering practice norms
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Strict_Sealing_Standard_Ruling",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 86-2, the Board ruled it unethical for a chief engineer to seal plans not personally prepared or thoroughly checked in detail, applying a strict literal interpretation of the terms direction and control.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Ruling may conflict with prevailing large-firm practice and impose an impossible standard on practitioners"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Responsible Charge",
    "Personal Preparation",
    "Public Protection"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Direction and Control",
    "Code Compliance",
    "Professional Accountability"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Board of Ethical Review (BER), BER Case 86-2",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Strict Personal Preparation Standard Held",
    "Community Controversy Over Standard"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Enforce rigorous personal accountability for sealed documents and protect the public from inadequately reviewed engineering work",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical interpretation of Code language",
    "Understanding of engineering practice norms"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "1986, BER Case 86-2",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Strict Sealing Standard Ruling"
}

Description: Engineer A, a registered professional engineer, signs and seals CADD-produced documents that he personally prepared, taking direct ownership of the work product.

Temporal Marker: Current case instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Document Certification Held
  • Engineer Responsible Charge Established

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Certify documents he personally produced as meeting professional standards, fulfilling the legal and ethical requirement of responsible charge

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Potential liability if CADD system limitations were not fully understood or accounted for in the work
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (3)
  • Responsible Charge
  • Professional Competence
  • Personal Preparation
Guided By Principles:
  • Direction and Control
  • Professional Accountability
  • Code Compliance
Required Capabilities:
CADD system proficiency Engineering judgment Understanding of CADD limitations Subject matter expertise
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Responsible Charge; Professional Competence; Personal Preparation
  • guidedByPrinciple: Direction and Control; Professional Accountability; Code Compliance
  • initiates: Document Certification Held; Engineer Responsible Charge Established
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A, a registered professional engineer, signs and seals CADD-produced documents that he personally prepared, taking direct ownership of the work product.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Current case
  • eventRoleContext content: Registered Professional Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Certify documents he personally produced as meeting professional standards, fulfilling the legal and ethical requirement of responsible charge
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Potential liability if CADD system limitations were not fully understood or accounted for in the work
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • requiresCapability: CADD system proficiency; Engineering judgment; Understanding of CADD limitations; Subject matter expertise
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Personal_Document_Sealing",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A, a registered professional engineer, signs and seals CADD-produced documents that he personally prepared, taking direct ownership of the work product.",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Registered Professional Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential liability if CADD system limitations were not fully understood or accounted for in the work"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Responsible Charge",
    "Professional Competence",
    "Personal Preparation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Direction and Control",
    "Professional Accountability",
    "Code Compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Document Certification Held",
    "Engineer Responsible Charge Established"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Certify documents he personally produced as meeting professional standards, fulfilling the legal and ethical requirement of responsible charge",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "CADD system proficiency",
    "Engineering judgment",
    "Understanding of CADD limitations",
    "Subject matter expertise"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Current case",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Personal Document Sealing"
}

Description: Engineer B, a registered professional engineer, signs and seals CADD-produced documents prepared by others working under his direction and control, without personally drafting the documents himself.

Temporal Marker: Current case instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (3)
  • Document Certification Held
  • Engineer Responsible Charge Established
  • Delegated Preparation Acknowledged

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Certify documents produced by supervised subordinates as meeting professional standards, consistent with large-firm practice

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Risk that review depth may be insufficient to catch errors introduced by subordinates or by CADD system outputs not fully understood
Obligation Engagement:
At stake (3)
  • Direction and Control
  • Responsible Charge
  • Supervisory Oversight
Guided By Principles:
  • Professional Accountability
  • Code Compliance
  • Alignment with Prevailing Practice
Required Capabilities:
CADD system proficiency Engineering judgment Supervisory competence Detailed review capability Subject matter expertise
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Professional Accountability; Code Compliance; Alignment with Prevailing Practice
  • initiates: Document Certification Held; Engineer Responsible Charge Established; Delegated Preparation Acknowledged
  • raisesObligation: Direction and Control; Responsible Charge; Supervisory Oversight
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer B, a registered professional engineer, signs and seals CADD-produced documents prepared by others working under his direction and control, without personally drafting the documents himself.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer B
  • temporalMarker content: Current case
  • eventRoleContext content: Registered Professional Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Certify documents produced by supervised subordinates as meeting professional standards, consistent with large-firm practice
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Risk that review depth may be insufficient to catch errors introduced by subordinates or by CADD system outputs not fully understood
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 6
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • requiresCapability: CADD system proficiency; Engineering judgment; Supervisory competence; Detailed review capability; Subject matter expertise
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Delegated_Work_Sealing",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B, a registered professional engineer, signs and seals CADD-produced documents prepared by others working under his direction and control, without personally drafting the documents himself.",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Registered Professional Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Risk that review depth may be insufficient to catch errors introduced by subordinates or by CADD system outputs not fully understood"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional Accountability",
    "Code Compliance",
    "Alignment with Prevailing Practice"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Document Certification Held",
    "Engineer Responsible Charge Established",
    "Delegated Preparation Acknowledged"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Certify documents produced by supervised subordinates as meeting professional standards, consistent with large-firm practice",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Direction and Control",
    "Responsible Charge",
    "Supervisory Oversight"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "CADD system proficiency",
    "Engineering judgment",
    "Supervisory competence",
    "Detailed review capability",
    "Subject matter expertise"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Current case",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Delegated Work Sealing"
}

Description: The Board modifies its conclusion from BER Case 86-2, ruling that an engineer may ethically seal plans not personally prepared, provided the engineer checks and reviews those plans in some detail, directs and controls the work, and assumes full responsibility for the work product.

Temporal Marker: Current case ruling instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (3)
  • Modified Sealing Standard Held
  • Detailed Review Requirement Active
  • Strict Personal Preparation Standard Terminated
Terminates (2)
  • Strict Personal Preparation Standard Held
  • Community Controversy Over Standard

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Align the ethical standard with generally prevailing professional practice, maintain Code credibility, and establish a reasonable and rational benchmark for responsible charge

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Risk that a relaxed standard may be interpreted permissively, reducing the rigor of review engineers actually perform before sealing documents
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (3)
  • Alignment with Prevailing Practice
  • Responsible Charge
  • Supervisory Oversight
Guided By Principles:
  • Code Compliance
  • Professional Accountability
  • Direction and Control
  • Public Protection
Required Capabilities:
Ethical interpretation of Code language Understanding of large-firm engineering practice Balancing idealistic and realistic professional standards
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Alignment with Prevailing Practice; Responsible Charge; Supervisory Oversight
  • guidedByPrinciple: Code Compliance; Professional Accountability; Direction and Control; Public Protection
  • initiates: Modified Sealing Standard Held; Detailed Review Requirement Active; Strict Personal Preparation Standard Terminated
  • terminates: Strict Personal Preparation Standard Held; Community Controversy Over Standard
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The Board modifies its conclusion from BER Case 86-2, ruling that an engineer may ethically seal plans not personally prepared, provided the engineer checks and reviews those plans in some detail, directs and controls the work, and assumes full responsibility for the work product.
  • hasAgent content: Board of Ethical Review (BER), Current Case
  • temporalMarker content: Current case ruling
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Align the ethical standard with generally prevailing professional practice, maintain Code credibility, and establish a reasonable and rational benchmark for responsible charge
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Risk that a relaxed standard may be interpreted permissively, reducing the rigor of review engineers actually perform before sealing documents
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • requiresCapability: Ethical interpretation of Code language; Understanding of large-firm engineering practice; Balancing idealistic and realistic professional standards
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Precedent_Clarification_Ruling",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "The Board modifies its conclusion from BER Case 86-2, ruling that an engineer may ethically seal plans not personally prepared, provided the engineer checks and reviews those plans in some detail, directs and controls the work, and assumes full responsibility for the work product.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Risk that a relaxed standard may be interpreted permissively, reducing the rigor of review engineers actually perform before sealing documents"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Alignment with Prevailing Practice",
    "Responsible Charge",
    "Supervisory Oversight"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Code Compliance",
    "Professional Accountability",
    "Direction and Control",
    "Public Protection"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Board of Ethical Review (BER), Current Case",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Modified Sealing Standard Held",
    "Detailed Review Requirement Active",
    "Strict Personal Preparation Standard Terminated"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Align the ethical standard with generally prevailing professional practice, maintain Code credibility, and establish a reasonable and rational benchmark for responsible charge",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical interpretation of Code language",
    "Understanding of large-firm engineering practice",
    "Balancing idealistic and realistic professional standards"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Current case ruling",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Strict Personal Preparation Standard Held",
    "Community Controversy Over Standard"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Precedent Clarification Ruling"
}
Extracted Events (5)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Engineering design practice evolved historically from manual drafting through CAD and then CADD systems, with AI anticipated as the next stage, progressively distancing the registered engineer from direct document production.

Temporal Marker: Historical period through present case interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • CADD-Based Practice Active
  • Delegation Norm Established
Terminates (1)
  • Manual Drafting as Dominant Practice

Causes State Change: The mode of engineering document production shifted from manual to computer-assisted methods, altering the practical relationship between the sealing engineer and the physical act of preparation.

Caused By Action: Action_Technology_Adoption_Decision

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Technology_Adoption_Decision
  • initiates: CADD-Based Practice Active; Delegation Norm Established
  • terminates: Manual Drafting as Dominant Practice
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineering design practice evolved historically from manual drafting through CAD and then CADD systems, with AI anticipated as the next stage, progressively distancing the registered engineer from direct document production.
  • temporalMarker content: Historical period through present case
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • causesStateChange content: The mode of engineering document production shifted from manual to computer-assisted methods, altering the practical relationship between the sealing engineer and the physical act of preparation.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • severity assessment: medium
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Event_Technology_Evolution",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Technology_Adoption_Decision",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "The mode of engineering document production shifted from manual to computer-assisted methods, altering the practical relationship between the sealing engineer and the physical act of preparation.",
  "proeth:description": "Engineering design practice evolved historically from manual drafting through CAD and then CADD systems, with AI anticipated as the next stage, progressively distancing the registered engineer from direct document production.",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "CADD-Based Practice Active",
    "Delegation Norm Established"
  ],
  "proeth:severity": "medium",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Historical period through present case",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Manual Drafting as Dominant Practice"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Technology Evolution"
}

Description: The 1986 BER Case 86-2 strict sealing ruling generated significant controversy within the engineering community because it conflicted with prevailing professional practices around delegated and supervised work.

Temporal Marker: 1986, shortly after BER Case 86-2 ruling interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Professional Standard Conflict
  • Community Dissent Active

Causes State Change: The engineering community entered a state of interpretive conflict, with the official ethical standard misaligned from widespread professional conduct.

Caused By Action: Action_Strict_Sealing_Standard_Ruling

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Strict_Sealing_Standard_Ruling
  • initiates: Professional Standard Conflict; Community Dissent Active
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The 1986 BER Case 86-2 strict sealing ruling generated significant controversy within the engineering community because it conflicted with prevailing professional practices around delegated and supervised work.
  • temporalMarker content: 1986, shortly after BER Case 86-2 ruling
  • eventType content: outcome
  • causesStateChange content: The engineering community entered a state of interpretive conflict, with the official ethical standard misaligned from widespread professional conduct.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • severity assessment: high
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Event_Professional_Controversy_Emergence",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Strict_Sealing_Standard_Ruling",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "The engineering community entered a state of interpretive conflict, with the official ethical standard misaligned from widespread professional conduct.",
  "proeth:description": "The 1986 BER Case 86-2 strict sealing ruling generated significant controversy within the engineering community because it conflicted with prevailing professional practices around delegated and supervised work.",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Professional Standard Conflict",
    "Community Dissent Active"
  ],
  "proeth:severity": "high",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "1986, shortly after BER Case 86-2 ruling",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "rdfs:label": "Professional Controversy Emergence"
}

Description: In the current case, the simultaneous practice of Engineer A sealing personally and Engineer B sealing through supervised subordinates made visible the unresolved tension between the 86-2 ruling and actual professional conduct, prompting the BER to revisit the earlier standard.

Temporal Marker: Current case, prior to BER deliberation instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Prior Ruling Under Review
  • Ethical Standard Ambiguity Active

Causes State Change: The BER recognized an active inconsistency between its prior ruling and documented professional practice, placing the adequacy of the 86-2 standard in question.

Caused By Action: Action_Delegated_Work_Sealing

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Delegated_Work_Sealing
  • initiates: Prior Ruling Under Review; Ethical Standard Ambiguity Active
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In the current case, the simultaneous practice of Engineer A sealing personally and Engineer B sealing through supervised subordinates made visible the unresolved tension between the 86-2 ruling and actual professional conduct, prompting the BER to revisit the earlier standard.
  • temporalMarker content: Current case, prior to BER deliberation
  • eventType content: automatic_trigger
  • causesStateChange content: The BER recognized an active inconsistency between its prior ruling and documented professional practice, placing the adequacy of the 86-2 standard in question.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 7
  • severity assessment: high
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Event_Standard_Conflict_Identified",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Delegated_Work_Sealing",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "The BER recognized an active inconsistency between its prior ruling and documented professional practice, placing the adequacy of the 86-2 standard in question.",
  "proeth:description": "In the current case, the simultaneous practice of Engineer A sealing personally and Engineer B sealing through supervised subordinates made visible the unresolved tension between the 86-2 ruling and actual professional conduct, prompting the BER to revisit the earlier standard.",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic_trigger",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Prior Ruling Under Review",
    "Ethical Standard Ambiguity Active"
  ],
  "proeth:severity": "high",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Current case, prior to BER deliberation",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "rdfs:label": "Standard Conflict Identified"
}

Description: Following the Precedent Clarification Ruling in the current case, the strict 86-2 personal-preparation standard was superseded by a moderated standard requiring detailed review and responsible charge rather than personal preparation.

Temporal Marker: Current case, upon issuance of BER ruling instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Moderated Sealing Standard Active
  • Delegated Sealing Permissible
Terminates (4)
  • Strict Personal Preparation Standard
  • Professional Standard Conflict
  • Ethical Standard Ambiguity Active
  • Prior Ruling Under Review

Causes State Change: The governing ethical standard for sealing engineering documents changed from requiring personal preparation or thorough checking to requiring detailed review and responsible charge, legitimizing supervised delegation.

Caused By Action: Action_Precedent_Clarification_Ruling

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Precedent_Clarification_Ruling
  • initiates: Moderated Sealing Standard Active; Delegated Sealing Permissible
  • terminates: Strict Personal Preparation Standard; Professional Standard Conflict; Ethical Standard Ambiguity Active; Prior Ruling Under Review
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Following the Precedent Clarification Ruling in the current case, the strict 86-2 personal-preparation standard was superseded by a moderated standard requiring detailed review and responsible charge rather than personal preparation.
  • temporalMarker content: Current case, upon issuance of BER ruling
  • eventType content: outcome
  • causesStateChange content: The governing ethical standard for sealing engineering documents changed from requiring personal preparation or thorough checking to requiring detailed review and responsible charge, legitimizing supervised delegation.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 9
  • severity assessment: high
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Event_Precedent_Moderation_Outcome",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Precedent_Clarification_Ruling",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "The governing ethical standard for sealing engineering documents changed from requiring personal preparation or thorough checking to requiring detailed review and responsible charge, legitimizing supervised delegation.",
  "proeth:description": "Following the Precedent Clarification Ruling in the current case, the strict 86-2 personal-preparation standard was superseded by a moderated standard requiring detailed review and responsible charge rather than personal preparation.",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Moderated Sealing Standard Active",
    "Delegated Sealing Permissible"
  ],
  "proeth:severity": "high",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Current case, upon issuance of BER ruling",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 9,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Strict Personal Preparation Standard",
    "Professional Standard Conflict",
    "Ethical Standard Ambiguity Active",
    "Prior Ruling Under Review"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Precedent Moderation Outcome"
}

Description: With the issuance of the moderated ruling, Engineer B's delegated CADD-based sealing practice, previously in tension with the strict 86-2 standard, became formally consistent with the revised ethical standard.

Temporal Marker: Current case, upon issuance of BER ruling instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Engineer B Practice Compliant
Terminates (2)
  • Community Dissent Active
  • Engineer B Practice Under Question

Causes State Change: Engineer B's delegated sealing practice transitioned from a state of ethical ambiguity to a state of compliance with the governing professional standard.

Caused By Action: Action_Precedent_Clarification_Ruling

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Precedent_Clarification_Ruling
  • initiates: Engineer B Practice Compliant
  • terminates: Community Dissent Active; Engineer B Practice Under Question
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: With the issuance of the moderated ruling, Engineer B's delegated CADD-based sealing practice, previously in tension with the strict 86-2 standard, became formally consistent with the revised ethical standard.
  • temporalMarker content: Current case, upon issuance of BER ruling
  • eventType content: automatic_trigger
  • causesStateChange content: Engineer B's delegated sealing practice transitioned from a state of ethical ambiguity to a state of compliance with the governing professional standard.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 10
  • severity assessment: medium
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Event_Community_Practice_Normalization",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#Action_Precedent_Clarification_Ruling",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer B\u0027s delegated sealing practice transitioned from a state of ethical ambiguity to a state of compliance with the governing professional standard.",
  "proeth:description": "With the issuance of the moderated ruling, Engineer B\u0027s delegated CADD-based sealing practice, previously in tension with the strict 86-2 standard, became formally consistent with the revised ethical standard.",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic_trigger",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Engineer B Practice Compliant"
  ],
  "proeth:severity": "medium",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Current case, upon issuance of BER ruling",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 10,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Community Dissent Active",
    "Engineer B Practice Under Question"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Community Practice Normalization"
}
Causal Chains (6)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: The rendering of the Board's opinion in BER Case 86-2 , raised a considerable degree of discussion within the engineering community because to many it appeared to be inconsistent with customary and generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Board's literal reading of 'direction' and 'control' in Section II.2.b.
  • Requirement that engineer perform all tasks to ethically seal
  • Inconsistency with prevailing professional practices
Sufficient Factors:
  • A ruling imposing an impossible standard inconsistent with customary practice generating community discussion
Counterfactual Test: Had the Board not read the language so literally, the controversy would not have arisen
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Strict Sealing Standard Ruling
    Board rules it unethical to seal plans not personally prepared in BER Case 86-2
  2. Professional Controversy Emergence
    Ruling generates considerable discussion as inconsistent with prevailing practice
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Strict Sealing Standard Ruling
  • effect: Professional Controversy Emergence
  • responsibleAgent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: The rendering of the Board's opinion in BER Case 86-2 , raised a considerable degree of discussion within the engineering community because to many it appeared to be inconsistent with customary and generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession
  • necessaryFactors content: Board's literal reading of 'direction' and 'control' in Section II.2.b.; Requirement that engineer perform all tasks to ethically seal; Inconsistency with prevailing professional practices
  • sufficientFactors content: A ruling imposing an impossible standard inconsistent with customary practice generating community discussion
  • counterfactual content: Had the Board not read the language so literally, the controversy would not have arisen
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Strict Sealing Standard Ruling', 'proeth:description': 'Board rules it unethical to seal plans not personally prepared in BER Case 86-2'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Professional Controversy Emergence', 'proeth:description': 'Ruling generates considerable discussion as inconsistent with prevailing practice'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#CausalChain_371b6be9",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The rendering of the Board\u0027s opinion in BER Case 86-2 , raised a considerable degree of discussion within the engineering community because to many it appeared to be inconsistent with customary and generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board rules it unethical to seal plans not personally prepared in BER Case 86-2",
      "proeth:element": "Strict Sealing Standard Ruling",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Ruling generates considerable discussion as inconsistent with prevailing practice",
      "proeth:element": "Professional Controversy Emergence",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Strict Sealing Standard Ruling",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the Board not read the language so literally, the controversy would not have arisen",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Professional Controversy Emergence",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Board\u0027s literal reading of \u0027direction\u0027 and \u0027control\u0027 in Section II.2.b.",
    "Requirement that engineer perform all tasks to ethically seal",
    "Inconsistency with prevailing professional practices"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Board of Ethical Review (BER)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "A ruling imposing an impossible standard inconsistent with customary practice generating community discussion"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: For that reason, we think the Board's conclusion in BER Case 86-2 should be modified to reflect actual practices which exist within engineering and not impose a impossible standard upon practice.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Controversy that the 86-2 ruling conflicted with prevailing practice
  • Board's recognition that the Code must not impose an impossible standard
  • Board's view that the Code is not a static document
Sufficient Factors:
  • Recognition of impossible standard plus the need to maintain Code credibility leading to modification
Counterfactual Test: Without the controversy revealing the conflict with practice, the Board would not have moved to clarify the precedent
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Professional Controversy Emergence
    Community discussion reveals 86-2 ruling conflicts with prevailing practice
  2. Precedent Clarification Ruling
    Board modifies 86-2 conclusion to permit sealing of reviewed but not personally prepared plans
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Professional Controversy Emergence
  • effect: Precedent Clarification Ruling
  • responsibleAgent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: For that reason, we think the Board's conclusion in BER Case 86-2 should be modified to reflect actual practices which exist within engineering and not impose a impossible standard upon practice.
  • necessaryFactors content: Controversy that the 86-2 ruling conflicted with prevailing practice; Board's recognition that the Code must not impose an impossible standard; Board's view that the Code is not a static document
  • sufficientFactors content: Recognition of impossible standard plus the need to maintain Code credibility leading to modification
  • counterfactual content: Without the controversy revealing the conflict with practice, the Board would not have moved to clarify the precedent
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Professional Controversy Emergence', 'proeth:description': 'Community discussion reveals 86-2 ruling conflicts with prevailing practice'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Precedent Clarification Ruling', 'proeth:description': 'Board modifies 86-2 conclusion to permit sealing of reviewed but not personally prepared plans'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#CausalChain_c5f0cdfb",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "For that reason, we think the Board\u0027s conclusion in BER Case 86-2 should be modified to reflect actual practices which exist within engineering and not impose a impossible standard upon practice.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Community discussion reveals 86-2 ruling conflicts with prevailing practice",
      "proeth:element": "Professional Controversy Emergence",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board modifies 86-2 conclusion to permit sealing of reviewed but not personally prepared plans",
      "proeth:element": "Precedent Clarification Ruling",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Professional Controversy Emergence",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the controversy revealing the conflict with practice, the Board would not have moved to clarify the precedent",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Precedent Clarification Ruling",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Controversy that the 86-2 ruling conflicted with prevailing practice",
    "Board\u0027s recognition that the Code must not impose an impossible standard",
    "Board\u0027s view that the Code is not a static document"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Board of Ethical Review (BER)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Recognition of impossible standard plus the need to maintain Code credibility leading to modification"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Were we to decide BER Case 86-2 today, we would conclude that the it was not unethical for the engineer in that instance to seal plans that were not personally prepared by him as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Board's decision to modify the 86-2 conclusion
  • New standard requiring detailed review rather than personal preparation
Sufficient Factors:
  • Issuance of the modified ruling replacing the strict personal-preparation requirement
Counterfactual Test: Without the clarification ruling, the strict personal-preparation standard would have remained in force
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Precedent Clarification Ruling
    Board modifies its 86-2 conclusion
  2. Precedent Moderation Outcome
    Strict 86-2 personal-preparation standard is moderated to a review-based standard
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Precedent Clarification Ruling
  • effect: Precedent Moderation Outcome
  • responsibleAgent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Were we to decide BER Case 86-2 today, we would conclude that the it was not unethical for the engineer in that instance to seal plans that were not personally prepared by him as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail.
  • necessaryFactors content: Board's decision to modify the 86-2 conclusion; New standard requiring detailed review rather than personal preparation
  • sufficientFactors content: Issuance of the modified ruling replacing the strict personal-preparation requirement
  • counterfactual content: Without the clarification ruling, the strict personal-preparation standard would have remained in force
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Precedent Clarification Ruling', 'proeth:description': 'Board modifies its 86-2 conclusion'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Precedent Moderation Outcome', 'proeth:description': 'Strict 86-2 personal-preparation standard is moderated to a review-based standard'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#CausalChain_e6370f92",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Were we to decide BER Case 86-2 today, we would conclude that the it was not unethical for the engineer in that instance to seal plans that were not personally prepared by him as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board modifies its 86-2 conclusion",
      "proeth:element": "Precedent Clarification Ruling",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Strict 86-2 personal-preparation standard is moderated to a review-based standard",
      "proeth:element": "Precedent Moderation Outcome",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Precedent Clarification Ruling",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the clarification ruling, the strict personal-preparation standard would have remained in force",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Precedent Moderation Outcome",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Board\u0027s decision to modify the 86-2 conclusion",
    "New standard requiring detailed review rather than personal preparation"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Board of Ethical Review (BER)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Issuance of the modified ruling replacing the strict personal-preparation requirement"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: based upon our discussion clarifying BER Case 86-2 , we believe logic would dictate that in either case it would not be unethical for an engineer to sign and seal the drawings in question as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Modified ruling permitting sealing of reviewed delegated work
  • Engineer B's practice of sealing CADD work prepared by others under his direction and control
  • Detailed review of the plans by the sealing engineer
Sufficient Factors:
  • Modified ruling combined with Engineer B's review-based delegated sealing rendering the practice ethical
Counterfactual Test: Under the strict 86-2 standard, Engineer B's delegated CADD-based sealing would have been deemed unethical
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Precedent Clarification Ruling
    Board permits sealing of reviewed but not personally prepared plans
  2. Delegated Work Sealing
    Engineer B seals CADD documents prepared by others under his direction and control
  3. Community Practice Normalization
    Engineer B's delegated CADD-based sealing practice is recognized as ethical
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Precedent Clarification Ruling
  • effect: Community Practice Normalization
  • responsibleAgent: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: based upon our discussion clarifying BER Case 86-2 , we believe logic would dictate that in either case it would not be unethical for an engineer to sign and seal the drawings in question as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail
  • necessaryFactors content: Modified ruling permitting sealing of reviewed delegated work; Engineer B's practice of sealing CADD work prepared by others under his direction and control; Detailed review of the plans by the sealing engineer
  • sufficientFactors content: Modified ruling combined with Engineer B's review-based delegated sealing rendering the practice ethical
  • counterfactual content: Under the strict 86-2 standard, Engineer B's delegated CADD-based sealing would have been deemed unethical
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Precedent Clarification Ruling', 'proeth:description': 'Board permits sealing of reviewed but not personally prepared plans'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Delegated Work Sealing', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B seals CADD documents prepared by others under his direction and control'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Community Practice Normalization', 'proeth:description': "Engineer B's delegated CADD-based sealing practice is recognized as ethical"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#CausalChain_214993ba",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "based upon our discussion clarifying BER Case 86-2 , we believe logic would dictate that in either case it would not be unethical for an engineer to sign and seal the drawings in question as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board permits sealing of reviewed but not personally prepared plans",
      "proeth:element": "Precedent Clarification Ruling",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B seals CADD documents prepared by others under his direction and control",
      "proeth:element": "Delegated Work Sealing",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B\u0027s delegated CADD-based sealing practice is recognized as ethical",
      "proeth:element": "Community Practice Normalization",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Precedent Clarification Ruling",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Under the strict 86-2 standard, Engineer B\u0027s delegated CADD-based sealing would have been deemed unethical",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Community Practice Normalization",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Modified ruling permitting sealing of reviewed delegated work",
    "Engineer B\u0027s practice of sealing CADD work prepared by others under his direction and control",
    "Detailed review of the plans by the sealing engineer"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Board of Ethical Review (BER)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Modified ruling combined with Engineer B\u0027s review-based delegated sealing rendering the practice ethical"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: It is critical for engineers to fully understand the role that new technologies such as CADD will play in the performance of professional services.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Adoption of CADD systems by engineers and firms
  • CADD producing results from the efforts of others
  • Existing Code requirement of direction and control
Sufficient Factors:
  • CADD adoption combined with delegated production raising the question of ethical sealing
Counterfactual Test: Without adoption of CADD systems for delegated work, no conflict over sealing CADD-produced documents would have surfaced
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineers and firms adopting CADD
Type: indirect
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Technology Adoption Decision
    Engineers transition to CADD for design and drafting
  2. Personal Document Sealing
    Engineer A seals CADD documents he personally prepared
  3. Standard Conflict Identified
    Simultaneous personal and delegated CADD sealing raises ethical questions under the Code
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Technology Adoption Decision
  • effect: Standard Conflict Identified
  • responsibleAgent: Engineers and firms adopting CADD
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: It is critical for engineers to fully understand the role that new technologies such as CADD will play in the performance of professional services.
  • necessaryFactors content: Adoption of CADD systems by engineers and firms; CADD producing results from the efforts of others; Existing Code requirement of direction and control
  • sufficientFactors content: CADD adoption combined with delegated production raising the question of ethical sealing
  • counterfactual content: Without adoption of CADD systems for delegated work, no conflict over sealing CADD-produced documents would have surfaced
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Technology Adoption Decision', 'proeth:description': 'Engineers transition to CADD for design and drafting'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Personal Document Sealing', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A seals CADD documents he personally prepared'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Standard Conflict Identified', 'proeth:description': 'Simultaneous personal and delegated CADD sealing raises ethical questions under the Code'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: indirect
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#CausalChain_018f1705",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "It is critical for engineers to fully understand the role that new technologies such as CADD will play in the performance of professional services.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineers transition to CADD for design and drafting",
      "proeth:element": "Technology Adoption Decision",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A seals CADD documents he personally prepared",
      "proeth:element": "Personal Document Sealing",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Simultaneous personal and delegated CADD sealing raises ethical questions under the Code",
      "proeth:element": "Standard Conflict Identified",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Technology Adoption Decision",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without adoption of CADD systems for delegated work, no conflict over sealing CADD-produced documents would have surfaced",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Standard Conflict Identified",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Adoption of CADD systems by engineers and firms",
    "CADD producing results from the efforts of others",
    "Existing Code requirement of direction and control"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineers and firms adopting CADD",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "CADD adoption combined with delegated production raising the question of ethical sealing"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: This language in the Code articulates an important point with respect to the use of CADD and similar systems in the development of documents and plans for the design of facilities and other projects.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Evolution of design practice from manual drafting to CAD then CADD
  • Use of CADD systems producing results from the efforts of others
  • Code language prohibiting sealing documents not prepared under direction and control
Sufficient Factors:
  • CADD-produced documents combined with Code's direction-and-control language creating ambiguity about sealing
Counterfactual Test: Without the technology evolution to CADD, the question of whether sealing CADD-produced delegated work is ethical would not have arisen
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineering profession (technology adopters)
Type: indirect
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Technology Evolution
    Engineering practice evolves from manual drafting through CAD to CADD
  2. Technology Adoption Decision
    Engineers and firms adopt CADD systems in producing design documents
  3. Standard Conflict Identified
    Question arises whether engineers may ethically seal CADD-produced documents prepared by others
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Technology Evolution
  • effect: Standard Conflict Identified
  • responsibleAgent: Engineering profession (technology adopters)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: This language in the Code articulates an important point with respect to the use of CADD and similar systems in the development of documents and plans for the design of facilities and other projects.
  • necessaryFactors content: Evolution of design practice from manual drafting to CAD then CADD; Use of CADD systems producing results from the efforts of others; Code language prohibiting sealing documents not prepared under direction and control
  • sufficientFactors content: CADD-produced documents combined with Code's direction-and-control language creating ambiguity about sealing
  • counterfactual content: Without the technology evolution to CADD, the question of whether sealing CADD-produced delegated work is ethical would not have arisen
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Technology Evolution', 'proeth:description': 'Engineering practice evolves from manual drafting through CAD to CADD'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Technology Adoption Decision', 'proeth:description': 'Engineers and firms adopt CADD systems in producing design documents'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Standard Conflict Identified', 'proeth:description': 'Question arises whether engineers may ethically seal CADD-produced documents prepared by others'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: indirect
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/120#CausalChain_345bc097",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "This language in the Code articulates an important point with respect to the use of CADD and similar systems in the development of documents and plans for the design of facilities and other projects.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineering practice evolves from manual drafting through CAD to CADD",
      "proeth:element": "Technology Evolution",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineers and firms adopt CADD systems in producing design documents",
      "proeth:element": "Technology Adoption Decision",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Question arises whether engineers may ethically seal CADD-produced documents prepared by others",
      "proeth:element": "Standard Conflict Identified",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Technology Evolution",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the technology evolution to CADD, the question of whether sealing CADD-produced delegated work is ethical would not have arisen",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Standard Conflict Identified",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Evolution of design practice from manual drafting to CAD then CADD",
    "Use of CADD systems producing results from the efforts of others",
    "Code language prohibiting sealing documents not prepared under direction and control"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineering profession (technology adopters)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "CADD-produced documents combined with Code\u0027s direction-and-control language creating ambiguity about sealing"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (4)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
CAD adoption before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		CADD adoption time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		the evolution that transformed yesterday's manual design techniques to Computer Aided Design (CAD), ... [more]
manual design techniques era before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		CAD adoption time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		the evolution that transformed yesterday's manual design techniques to Computer Aided Design (CAD)
CADD adoption before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Artificial Intelligence (AI) adoption time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		thence to Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD) and soon Artificial Intelligence (AE)
Engineer A and Engineer B CADD usage during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		current case decision period time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		Engineer A, a registered professional engineer signs and seals documents he prepared using a CADD sy... [more]
About Allen Relations & OWL-Time

Allen's Interval Algebra provides 13 basic temporal relations between intervals. These relations are mapped to OWL-Time standard properties for interoperability with Semantic Web temporal reasoning systems and SPARQL queries.

Each relation includes both a ProEthica custom property and a time:* OWL-Time property for maximum compatibility.

Back to Extraction Continue to Step 4

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3 | Report Issue