This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-14 15:02; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Provenance Draft

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 132: Public Health and Safety— Observed Structural Defects and Inspection by County Building Official

49 entities 5 actions 10 events 10 causal chains 23 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 22 sequenced markers
Building Fire Before Engineer A was hired
Structural Instability Emergence After recent structural changes, before Engineer A's investigation
Occupancy Certificate Issuance After the construction modifications, before the fire investigation
Replacement Authorization Within three weeks of the closure (BER Case 00-5)
Barricade Vandalism The Monday following the Friday bridge closure (BER Case 00-5)
Friday afternoon, June 2000, within the hour of the inspector's call
Bridge Structural Movement After the bridge was reopened with a five-ton limit (BER Case 00-5)
Barn Modification Approval After Jones proposed and built the barn extension (BER Case 07-10)
Barn Hazard Discovery After the barn extension was built and occupied (BER Case 07-10)
Bridge Piling Deterioration By June 2000 (BER Case 00-5)
Structural Hazard Discovery During the fire origin and cause investigation
Building Official Contact Immediately after concluding collapse was a danger
Bracing Recommendation Following the preliminary structural conclusion
Official Response Omission Following Engineer A's phone call
Weeks after the closure, following the rally and petition
Later in the process, after preliminary site studies
After the bridge was reopened and heavy traffic observed
After purchasing the property, during the barn extension
After learning of the barn extension
Following the verbal notification to the town supervisor
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 23 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
detailed inspection report time:intervalBefore authorization for bridge replacement
Engineer A's observation of structural instability time:intervalDuring fire origin-and-cause investigation
recent structural changes to the building time:intervalBefore Engineer A's preliminary investigation and conclusion
construction modifications time:intervalBefore issuance of certificate of occupancy
conversation with Client B time:intervalBefore Engineer A's conclusion about structural changes
Engineer A's conclusion of collapse danger time:intervalMeets advising Client B and calling county building official
Engineer A's phone call to county building official time:intervalBefore continued pursuit of resolution (contacting supervisor, fire marshal, other agencies)
bridge construction by the state time:intervalBefore transfer of bridge to counties
bridge inspector's telephone call time:intervalBefore erection of barricades and signs
erection of barricades (Friday) time:intervalBefore discovery of vandalized barricades (following Monday)
discovery of vandalized barricades time:intervalBefore installation of more permanent barricades and signs
bridge closure time:intervalBefore detailed inspection report by consulting engineering firm
state and federal transportation department reviews time:intervalBefore use of funds for bridge replacement
rally and petition to County Commission time:intervalBefore County Commission decision not to reopen the bridge
retired bridge inspector's examination time:intervalBefore installation of crutch piles and reopening with five-ton limit
bridge reopening with five-ton limit time:intervalBefore Engineer A's observation of traffic and bridge movement
sale of property to Jones time:intervalBefore Jones's barn extension and removal of columns/footings
town approval of changes time:intervalBefore construction of extension and issuance of certificate of occupancy
certificate of occupancy issuance (barn) time:intervalBefore Engineer A learning of the extension and fearing snow-load collapse
Engineer A's verbal contact with town supervisor time:intervalBefore town supervisor's inaction
notifying the current owner time:intervalBefore notifying the town supervisor in writing
verbal communication with town supervisor time:intervalBefore written confirmation to town supervisor
written confirmation time:intervalOverlaps continued monitoring of the situation
Extracted Actions (5)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer A, upon observing that the building under fire investigation was structurally unstable, performed a preliminary structural investigation and consulted Client B, concluding that recent structural changes may have caused the roof to sag and walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint.

Temporal Marker: During the fire origin and cause investigation interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Known Structural Collapse Danger

Mental State: deliberate professional inquiry

Intended Outcome: Determine the cause and extent of the observed structural instability

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Expanding beyond the contracted scope of the fire investigation
Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Guided By Principles:
  • Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Required Capabilities:
Structural engineering assessment Forensic investigation
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
  • requiresCapability: Structural engineering assessment; Forensic investigation
  • initiates: Known Structural Collapse Danger
  • raisesObligation: Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A, upon observing that the building under fire investigation was structurally unstable, performed a preliminary structural investigation and consulted Client B, concluding that recent structural changes may have caused the roof to sag and walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: During the fire origin and cause investigation
  • eventRoleContext content: Fire Investigator and Structural Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate professional inquiry
  • intendedOutcome content: Determine the cause and extent of the observed structural instability
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Expanding beyond the contracted scope of the fire investigation
  • textReferences content: Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Action_Preliminary_Structural_Investigation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119210+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A, upon observing that the building under fire investigation was structurally unstable, performed a preliminary structural investigation and consulted Client B, concluding that recent structural changes may have caused the roof to sag and walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Fire Investigator and Structural Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Expanding beyond the contracted scope of the fire investigation"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public Health, Safety, and Welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate professional inquiry",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Known Structural Collapse Danger"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Determine the cause and extent of the observed structural instability",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Structural engineering assessment",
    "Forensic investigation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the fire origin and cause investigation",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Preliminary Structural Investigation"
}

Description: Engineer A immediately advised Client B of his conclusion that collapse of the building was a danger, although not imminent.

Temporal Marker: Immediately after concluding collapse was a danger instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Client Informed of Collapse Danger

Mental State: deliberate and urgent

Intended Outcome: Make the client aware of the collapse danger so corrective steps could be taken

Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Guided By Principles:
  • Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Required Capabilities:
Structural engineering judgment Professional communication
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
  • requiresCapability: Structural engineering judgment; Professional communication
  • initiates: Client Informed of Collapse Danger
  • raisesObligation: Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A immediately advised Client B of his conclusion that collapse of the building was a danger, although not imminent.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Immediately after concluding collapse was a danger
  • eventRoleContext content: Fire Investigator and Structural Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate and urgent
  • intendedOutcome content: Make the client aware of the collapse danger so corrective steps could be taken
  • textReferences content: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 6
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Action_Client_Hazard_Notification",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119410+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A immediately advised Client B of his conclusion that collapse of the building was a danger, although not imminent.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Fire Investigator and Structural Engineer",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public Health, Safety, and Welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate and urgent",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Client Informed of Collapse Danger"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Make the client aware of the collapse danger so corrective steps could be taken",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Structural engineering judgment",
    "Professional communication"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Immediately after concluding collapse was a danger",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Client Hazard Notification"
}

Description: Engineer A called the county building official who had issued the certificate of occupancy after the modifications, seeking to alert the authority having jurisdiction to the structural danger.

Temporal Marker: Immediately after concluding collapse was a danger instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Notification to Authorities Pending

Mental State: deliberate and urgent

Intended Outcome: Prompt the county building official to investigate the structural condition despite the issued certificate of occupancy

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Possible conflict with the official who issued the certificate of occupancy
Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Guided By Principles:
  • Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Required Capabilities:
Professional communication Knowledge of jurisdictional authority
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
  • requiresCapability: Professional communication; Knowledge of jurisdictional authority
  • initiates: Notification to Authorities Pending
  • raisesObligation: Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A called the county building official who had issued the certificate of occupancy after the modifications, seeking to alert the authority having jurisdiction to the structural danger.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Immediately after concluding collapse was a danger
  • eventRoleContext content: Fire Investigator and Structural Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate and urgent
  • intendedOutcome content: Prompt the county building official to investigate the structural condition despite the issued certificate of occupancy
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Possible conflict with the official who issued the certificate of occupancy
  • textReferences content: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.; The county building official did not return Engineer A’s phone call.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 7
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Action_Building_Official_Contact",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119468+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A called the county building official who had issued the certificate of occupancy after the modifications, seeking to alert the authority having jurisdiction to the structural danger.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Fire Investigator and Structural Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Possible conflict with the official who issued the certificate of occupancy"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public Health, Safety, and Welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate and urgent",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Notification to Authorities Pending"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Prompt the county building official to investigate the structural condition despite the issued certificate of occupancy",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional communication",
    "Knowledge of jurisdictional authority"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Immediately after concluding collapse was a danger",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.",
    "The county building official did not return Engineer A\u2019s phone call."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Building Official Contact"
}

Description: Engineer A recommended to the owners that the building be braced to prevent its collapse.

Temporal Marker: Following the preliminary structural conclusion instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Corrective Bracing Recommended

Mental State: deliberate protective judgment

Intended Outcome: Prevent the collapse of the building through interim structural support

Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Guided By Principles:
  • Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Required Capabilities:
Structural engineering judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
  • guidedByPrinciple: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
  • requiresCapability: Structural engineering judgment
  • initiates: Corrective Bracing Recommended
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A recommended to the owners that the building be braced to prevent its collapse.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Following the preliminary structural conclusion
  • eventRoleContext content: Fire Investigator and Structural Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate protective judgment
  • intendedOutcome content: Prevent the collapse of the building through interim structural support
  • textReferences content: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Action_Bracing_Recommendation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119500+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A recommended to the owners that the building be braced to prevent its collapse.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Fire Investigator and Structural Engineer",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public Health, Safety, and Welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate protective judgment",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Corrective Bracing Recommended"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Prevent the collapse of the building through interim structural support",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Structural engineering judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following the preliminary structural conclusion",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Bracing Recommendation"
}

Description: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call regarding the structural danger, a non-response the case treats as the official's conduct that left the safety concern unaddressed by the authority having jurisdiction.

Temporal Marker: Following Engineer A's phone call interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Unresolved Safety Concern

Mental State: implicit disregard, non-responsive

Intended Outcome: Not stated in the case

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Structural danger remains unexamined by the jurisdiction
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (1)
  • Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Required Capabilities:
Building code enforcement authority
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
  • requiresCapability: Building code enforcement authority
  • initiates: Unresolved Safety Concern
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call regarding the structural danger, a non-response the case treats as the official's conduct that left the safety concern unaddressed by the authority having jurisdiction.
  • hasAgent content: County building official
  • temporalMarker content: Following Engineer A's phone call
  • hasMentalState content: implicit disregard, non-responsive
  • intendedOutcome content: Not stated in the case
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Structural danger remains unexamined by the jurisdiction
  • textReferences content: The county building official did not return Engineer A’s phone call.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 9
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Action_Official_Response_Omission",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119588+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The county building official did not return Engineer A\u0027s phone call regarding the structural danger, a non-response the case treats as the official\u0027s conduct that left the safety concern unaddressed by the authority having jurisdiction.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Structural danger remains unexamined by the jurisdiction"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "County building official",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "implicit disregard, non-responsive",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Unresolved Safety Concern"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Not stated in the case",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Building code enforcement authority"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following Engineer A\u0027s phone call",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 9,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The county building official did not return Engineer A\u2019s phone call."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Obligation to Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Official Response Omission"
}
Extracted Events (10)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Following the construction modifications, a certificate of occupancy for the building is issued by a county building official under the local permitting process.

Temporal Marker: After the construction modifications, before the fire investigation instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Building Occupancy Authorized
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Building Occupancy Authorized
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Following the construction modifications, a certificate of occupancy for the building is issued by a county building official under the local permitting process.
  • temporalMarker content: After the construction modifications, before the fire investigation
  • textReferences content: following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official
  • eventType content: automatic
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Event_Occupancy_Certificate_Issuance",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119740+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "Following the construction modifications, a certificate of occupancy for the building is issued by a county building official under the local permitting process.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Building Occupancy Authorized"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After the construction modifications, before the fire investigation",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Occupancy Certificate Issuance"
}

Description: Following recent structural changes to the building, the roof sags and the walls lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint, creating a danger of collapse that is not imminent.

Temporal Marker: After recent structural changes, before Engineer A's investigation interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Structural Instability
  • Collapse Danger
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Structural Instability; Collapse Danger
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Following recent structural changes to the building, the roof sags and the walls lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint, creating a danger of collapse that is not imminent.
  • temporalMarker content: After recent structural changes, before Engineer A's investigation
  • textReferences content: recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint; Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Event_Structural_Instability_Emergence",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119715+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "Following recent structural changes to the building, the roof sags and the walls lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint, creating a danger of collapse that is not imminent.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Structural Instability",
    "Collapse Danger"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After recent structural changes, before Engineer A\u0027s investigation",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint",
    "Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Structural Instability Emergence"
}

Description: A fire occurs in Client B's building, causing financial loss and prompting the hiring of Engineer A to investigate origin and cause.

Temporal Marker: Before Engineer A was hired instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Fire Damage Condition
  • Financial Loss
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Fire Damage Condition; Financial Loss
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: A fire occurs in Client B's building, causing financial loss and prompting the hiring of Engineer A to investigate origin and cause.
  • temporalMarker content: Before Engineer A was hired
  • textReferences content: a fire resulting in financial loss
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Event_Building_Fire",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119678+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.95",
  "proeth:description": "A fire occurs in Client B\u0027s building, causing financial loss and prompting the hiring of Engineer A to investigate origin and cause.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Fire Damage Condition",
    "Financial Loss"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Before Engineer A was hired",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "a fire resulting in financial loss"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Building Fire"
}

Description: During the fire investigation, Engineer A observes that the building is structurally unstable, bringing the collapse danger to professional attention.

Temporal Marker: During the fire origin and cause investigation instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Engineer Awareness of Collapse Danger
  • Public Safety Risk

Caused By Action: Action_Preliminary_Structural_Investigation

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#Action_Preliminary_Structural_Investigation
  • initiates: Engineer Awareness of Collapse Danger; Public Safety Risk
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: During the fire investigation, Engineer A observes that the building is structurally unstable, bringing the collapse danger to professional attention.
  • temporalMarker content: During the fire origin and cause investigation
  • textReferences content: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Event_Structural_Hazard_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119765+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#Action_Preliminary_Structural_Investigation",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "During the fire investigation, Engineer A observes that the building is structurally unstable, bringing the collapse danger to professional attention.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Engineer Awareness of Collapse Danger",
    "Public Safety Risk"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the fire origin and cause investigation",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Structural Hazard Discovery"
}

Description: In BER Case 00-5, a large number of the wood pilings supporting the 1950s bridge rot, with some piles not reaching the ground, requiring closure of the bridge.

Temporal Marker: By June 2000 (BER Case 00-5) interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Bridge Safety Hazard
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Bridge Safety Hazard
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 00-5, a large number of the wood pilings supporting the 1950s bridge rot, with some piles not reaching the ground, requiring closure of the bridge.
  • temporalMarker content: By June 2000 (BER Case 00-5)
  • textReferences content: the bridge needed to be closed due to the large number of rotten pilings
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 10
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Event_Bridge_Piling_Deterioration",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119787+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 00-5, a large number of the wood pilings supporting the 1950s bridge rot, with some piles not reaching the ground, requiring closure of the bridge.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Bridge Safety Hazard"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "By June 2000 (BER Case 00-5)",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 10,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "the bridge needed to be closed due to the large number of rotten pilings"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Bridge Piling Deterioration"
}

Description: In BER Case 00-5, the barricades erected on Friday are found dumped in the river by the following Monday and the closure sign is found beyond the trees, removing the protective closure until more permanent barricades are installed.

Temporal Marker: The Monday following the Friday bridge closure (BER Case 00-5) instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Unprotected Bridge Hazard
Terminates (1)
  • Bridge Closure Protection
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Unprotected Bridge Hazard
  • terminates: Bridge Closure Protection
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 00-5, the barricades erected on Friday are found dumped in the river by the following Monday and the closure sign is found beyond the trees, removing the protective closure until more permanent barricades are installed.
  • temporalMarker content: The Monday following the Friday bridge closure (BER Case 00-5)
  • textReferences content: On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 11
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Event_Barricade_Vandalism",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119809+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 00-5, the barricades erected on Friday are found dumped in the river by the following Monday and the closure sign is found beyond the trees, removing the protective closure until more permanent barricades are installed.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Unprotected Bridge Hazard"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "The Monday following the Friday bridge closure (BER Case 00-5)",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 11,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Bridge Closure Protection"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Barricade Vandalism"
}

Description: In BER Case 00-5, authorization for the bridge to be replaced is obtained within three weeks, subject to pending state and federal transportation department reviews before funds could be used.

Temporal Marker: Within three weeks of the closure (BER Case 00-5) instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Bridge Replacement Authorized

Caused By Action: Action_Emergency_Bridge_Closure

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#Action_Emergency_Bridge_Closure
  • initiates: Bridge Replacement Authorized
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 00-5, authorization for the bridge to be replaced is obtained within three weeks, subject to pending state and federal transportation department reviews before funds could be used.
  • temporalMarker content: Within three weeks of the closure (BER Case 00-5)
  • textReferences content: Within three weeks, Engineer A had obtained authorization for the bridge to be replaced.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 12
  • confidence assessment: 0.75
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Event_Replacement_Authorization",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119838+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#Action_Emergency_Bridge_Closure",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.75",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 00-5, authorization for the bridge to be replaced is obtained within three weeks, subject to pending state and federal transportation department reviews before funds could be used.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Bridge Replacement Authorized"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Within three weeks of the closure (BER Case 00-5)",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 12,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Within three weeks, Engineer A had obtained authorization for the bridge to be replaced."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Replacement Authorization"
}

Description: In BER Case 00-5, after the bridge is reopened with crutch piles and a five-ton limit without follow-up inspection, significant movement of the bridge occurs while heavy traffic, including log trucks and tankers, crosses regularly.

Temporal Marker: After the bridge was reopened with a five-ton limit (BER Case 00-5) interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Ongoing Bridge Safety Hazard
  • Weight Limit Noncompliance

Caused By Action: Action_Unqualified_Inspection_Assignment

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#Action_Unqualified_Inspection_Assignment
  • initiates: Ongoing Bridge Safety Hazard; Weight Limit Noncompliance
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 00-5, after the bridge is reopened with crutch piles and a five-ton limit without follow-up inspection, significant movement of the bridge occurs while heavy traffic, including log trucks and tankers, crosses regularly.
  • temporalMarker content: After the bridge was reopened with a five-ton limit (BER Case 00-5)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing as well as significant movement of the bridge. Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis, while school buses went around it.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 13
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Event_Bridge_Structural_Movement",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119864+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#Action_Unqualified_Inspection_Assignment",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 00-5, after the bridge is reopened with crutch piles and a five-ton limit without follow-up inspection, significant movement of the bridge occurs while heavy traffic, including log trucks and tankers, crosses regularly.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Ongoing Bridge Safety Hazard",
    "Weight Limit Noncompliance"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After the bridge was reopened with a five-ton limit (BER Case 00-5)",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 13,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing as well as significant movement of the bridge. Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis, while school buses went around it."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Bridge Structural Movement"
}

Description: In BER Case 07-10, the town approves Jones's barn extension changes, the extension is built, and a certificate of occupancy is issued despite the removal of portions of the supporting columns and footings.

Temporal Marker: After Jones proposed and built the barn extension (BER Case 07-10) instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Barn Occupancy Authorized

Caused By Action: Action_Structural_Support_Removal

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#Action_Structural_Support_Removal
  • initiates: Barn Occupancy Authorized
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 07-10, the town approves Jones's barn extension changes, the extension is built, and a certificate of occupancy is issued despite the removal of portions of the supporting columns and footings.
  • temporalMarker content: After Jones proposed and built the barn extension (BER Case 07-10)
  • textReferences content: The changes were approved by the town, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was issued.
  • eventType content: automatic
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 14
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Event_Barn_Modification_Approval",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119887+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#Action_Structural_Support_Removal",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 07-10, the town approves Jones\u0027s barn extension changes, the extension is built, and a certificate of occupancy is issued despite the removal of portions of the supporting columns and footings.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Barn Occupancy Authorized"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Jones proposed and built the barn extension (BER Case 07-10)",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 14,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The changes were approved by the town, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was issued."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Barn Modification Approval"
}

Description: In BER Case 07-10, Engineer A learns of the barn extension and becomes concerned that the structure may collapse under severe snow loads.

Temporal Marker: After the barn extension was built and occupied (BER Case 07-10) instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Snow Load Collapse Risk Awareness
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Snow Load Collapse Risk Awareness
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 07-10, Engineer A learns of the barn extension and becomes concerned that the structure may collapse under severe snow loads.
  • temporalMarker content: After the barn extension was built and occupied (BER Case 07-10)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 15
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "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/ontology/case/132#Event_Barn_Hazard_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119908+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 07-10, Engineer A learns of the barn extension and becomes concerned that the structure may collapse under severe snow loads.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Snow Load Collapse Risk Awareness"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After the barn extension was built and occupied (BER Case 07-10)",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 15,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Barn Hazard Discovery"
}
Causal Chains (10)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Occurrence of the fire causing financial loss
  • Client B's decision to hire an engineer to investigate
  • Engineer A's structural engineering competence enabling recognition of instability
Sufficient Factors:
  • Fire loss + Client B's engagement of Engineer A + Engineer A's on-site presence during the fire investigation
Counterfactual Test: Without the fire, Engineer A would not have been hired and would not have been on site to perform any investigation of the building
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Client B (for engagement); fire itself is a non-agent event
Type: indirect
Within Agent Control: No

Causal Sequence:
  1. Building Fire
    Fire occurs in Client B's building causing financial loss
  2. Engagement of Engineer A
    Client B hires Engineer A to determine origin and cause of the fire
  3. On-site Observation
    Engineer A, also a structural engineer, observes structural instability during the fire investigation
  4. Preliminary Structural Investigation
    Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building's structural condition
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Building Fire
  • effect: Preliminary Structural Investigation
  • responsibleAgent: Client B (for engagement); fire itself is a non-agent event
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss.
  • necessaryFactors content: Occurrence of the fire causing financial loss; Client B's decision to hire an engineer to investigate; Engineer A's structural engineering competence enabling recognition of instability
  • sufficientFactors content: Fire loss + Client B's engagement of Engineer A + Engineer A's on-site presence during the fire investigation
  • counterfactual content: Without the fire, Engineer A would not have been hired and would not have been on site to perform any investigation of the building
  • agentKnowledge content: Client B knew of the fire and financial loss and sought professional determination of origin and cause
  • interveningFactors content: Engineer A's dual competence as a structural engineer
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Building Fire', 'proeth:description': "Fire occurs in Client B's building causing financial loss"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Engagement of Engineer A', 'proeth:description': 'Client B hires Engineer A to determine origin and cause of the fire'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'On-site Observation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A, also a structural engineer, observes structural instability during the fire investigation'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Preliminary Structural Investigation', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building's structural condition"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: indirect
  • withinAgentControl assessment: False
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119969+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Client B knew of the fire and financial loss and sought professional determination of origin and cause",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Fire occurs in Client B\u0027s building causing financial loss",
      "proeth:element": "Building Fire",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client B hires Engineer A to determine origin and cause of the fire",
      "proeth:element": "Engagement of Engineer A",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A, also a structural engineer, observes structural instability during the fire investigation",
      "proeth:element": "On-site Observation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building\u0027s structural condition",
      "proeth:element": "Preliminary Structural Investigation",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Building Fire",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the fire, Engineer A would not have been hired and would not have been on site to perform any investigation of the building",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Preliminary Structural Investigation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s dual competence as a structural engineer"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Occurrence of the fire causing financial loss",
    "Client B\u0027s decision to hire an engineer to investigate",
    "Engineer A\u0027s structural engineering competence enabling recognition of instability"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Client B (for engagement); fire itself is a non-agent event",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Fire loss + Client B\u0027s engagement of Engineer A + Engineer A\u0027s on-site presence during the fire investigation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": false
}

Causal Language: concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Recent structural changes to the building
  • Insufficient lateral restraint producing visible sagging and leaning
  • Presence of a qualified structural engineer on site
Sufficient Factors:
  • Visible manifestation of instability (sagging roof, leaning walls) + Engineer A's structural expertise + access during fire investigation
Counterfactual Test: If the structural changes had not compromised the building, there would have been no instability for Engineer A to observe
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Unknown party who made the structural modifications (with county building official's certification compounding)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Structural Modifications
    Recent structural changes are made to the building
  2. Structural Instability Emergence
    Roof sags and walls lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint
  3. Structural Hazard Discovery
    Engineer A observes instability during the fire investigation and concludes collapse is a danger
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Structural Instability Emergence
  • effect: Structural Hazard Discovery
  • responsibleAgent: Unknown party who made the structural modifications (with county building official's certification compounding)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint
  • necessaryFactors content: Recent structural changes to the building; Insufficient lateral restraint producing visible sagging and leaning; Presence of a qualified structural engineer on site
  • sufficientFactors content: Visible manifestation of instability (sagging roof, leaning walls) + Engineer A's structural expertise + access during fire investigation
  • counterfactual content: If the structural changes had not compromised the building, there would have been no instability for Engineer A to observe
  • agentKnowledge content: The modifying party presumably knew changes were made; the extent of their knowledge of structural consequences is not stated
  • interveningFactors content: Issuance of certificate of occupancy despite the deficiency
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Structural Modifications', 'proeth:description': 'Recent structural changes are made to the building'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Structural Instability Emergence', 'proeth:description': 'Roof sags and walls lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Structural Hazard Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A observes instability during the fire investigation and concludes collapse is a danger'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.119999+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "The modifying party presumably knew changes were made; the extent of their knowledge of structural consequences is not stated",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Recent structural changes are made to the building",
      "proeth:element": "Structural Modifications",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Roof sags and walls lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint",
      "proeth:element": "Structural Instability Emergence",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A observes instability during the fire investigation and concludes collapse is a danger",
      "proeth:element": "Structural Hazard Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Structural Instability Emergence",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If the structural changes had not compromised the building, there would have been no instability for Engineer A to observe",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Structural Hazard Discovery",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Issuance of certificate of occupancy despite the deficiency"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Recent structural changes to the building",
    "Insufficient lateral restraint producing visible sagging and leaning",
    "Presence of a qualified structural engineer on site"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Unknown party who made the structural modifications (with county building official\u0027s certification compounding)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Visible manifestation of instability (sagging roof, leaning walls) + Engineer A\u0027s structural expertise + access during fire investigation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes. Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's belief that collapse is a danger
  • Engineer A's ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare
  • Existing professional relationship with Client B
Sufficient Factors:
  • Discovery of the collapse danger + Engineer A's adherence to the NSPE Code's paramount safety obligation
Counterfactual Test: Without discovering the structural hazard, Engineer A would have had no basis or reason to advise Client B of a collapse danger
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Structural Hazard Discovery
    Engineer A concludes collapse of the building is a danger
  2. Ethical Duty Recognition
    Engineer A recognizes the paramount obligation to public safety under the NSPE Code
  3. Client Hazard Notification
    Engineer A immediately advises Client B of the danger
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Structural Hazard Discovery
  • effect: Client Hazard Notification
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes. Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's belief that collapse is a danger; Engineer A's ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare; Existing professional relationship with Client B
  • sufficientFactors content: Discovery of the collapse danger + Engineer A's adherence to the NSPE Code's paramount safety obligation
  • counterfactual content: Without discovering the structural hazard, Engineer A would have had no basis or reason to advise Client B of a collapse danger
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew the building was structurally unstable and that collapse, while not imminent, was a danger
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Structural Hazard Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A concludes collapse of the building is a danger'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Ethical Duty Recognition', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A recognizes the paramount obligation to public safety under the NSPE Code'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Client Hazard Notification', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A immediately advises Client B of the danger'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.120021+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew the building was structurally unstable and that collapse, while not imminent, was a danger",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes. Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A concludes collapse of the building is a danger",
      "proeth:element": "Structural Hazard Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A recognizes the paramount obligation to public safety under the NSPE Code",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Duty Recognition",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A immediately advises Client B of the danger",
      "proeth:element": "Client Hazard Notification",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Structural Hazard Discovery",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without discovering the structural hazard, Engineer A would have had no basis or reason to advise Client B of a collapse danger",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Client Hazard Notification",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s belief that collapse is a danger",
    "Engineer A\u0027s ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare",
    "Existing professional relationship with Client B"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Discovery of the collapse danger + Engineer A\u0027s adherence to the NSPE Code\u0027s paramount safety obligation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Discovery that collapse is a danger
  • Engineer A's structural expertise to identify bracing as a mitigation
  • Access to the owners to communicate the recommendation
Sufficient Factors:
  • Identified collapse danger + Engineer A's technical judgment that bracing would prevent collapse
Counterfactual Test: Without discovery of the hazard, no bracing recommendation would have been made
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Structural Hazard Discovery
    Engineer A determines collapse is a danger
  2. Mitigation Assessment
    Engineer A identifies bracing as a preventive measure
  3. Bracing Recommendation
    Engineer A recommends the owners brace the building to prevent collapse
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Structural Hazard Discovery
  • effect: Bracing Recommendation
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
  • necessaryFactors content: Discovery that collapse is a danger; Engineer A's structural expertise to identify bracing as a mitigation; Access to the owners to communicate the recommendation
  • sufficientFactors content: Identified collapse danger + Engineer A's technical judgment that bracing would prevent collapse
  • counterfactual content: Without discovery of the hazard, no bracing recommendation would have been made
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew collapse was a danger though not imminent, and knew bracing could prevent it
  • interveningFactors content: Owners' willingness to implement the recommendation is uncertain
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Structural Hazard Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A determines collapse is a danger'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Mitigation Assessment', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A identifies bracing as a preventive measure'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Bracing Recommendation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A recommends the owners brace the building to prevent collapse'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.120041+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew collapse was a danger though not imminent, and knew bracing could prevent it",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A determines collapse is a danger",
      "proeth:element": "Structural Hazard Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A identifies bracing as a preventive measure",
      "proeth:element": "Mitigation Assessment",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A recommends the owners brace the building to prevent collapse",
      "proeth:element": "Bracing Recommendation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Structural Hazard Discovery",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without discovery of the hazard, no bracing recommendation would have been made",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Bracing Recommendation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Owners\u0027 willingness to implement the recommendation is uncertain"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Discovery that collapse is a danger",
    "Engineer A\u0027s structural expertise to identify bracing as a mitigation",
    "Access to the owners to communicate the recommendation"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Identified collapse danger + Engineer A\u0027s technical judgment that bracing would prevent collapse"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Issuance of the certificate of occupancy by the county building official
  • Engineer A's discovery of the structural hazard
  • Engineer A's knowledge that the county official had jurisdictional authority
Sufficient Factors:
  • Knowledge that an official had certified an unsafe building + discovered collapse danger + Engineer A's duty to alert authorities
Counterfactual Test: Had no certificate been issued or had Engineer A not learned of it, the specific decision to call the county building official may not have occurred, though some official notification would likely still be warranted
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (for the contact); county building official (for the certification)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Occupancy Certificate Issuance
    County building official issues certificate of occupancy after modifications
  2. Structural Hazard Discovery
    Engineer A discovers instability and learns of the certificate
  3. Building Official Contact
    Engineer A calls the county building official who issued the certificate
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Occupancy Certificate Issuance
  • effect: Building Official Contact
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (for the contact); county building official (for the certification)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
  • necessaryFactors content: Issuance of the certificate of occupancy by the county building official; Engineer A's discovery of the structural hazard; Engineer A's knowledge that the county official had jurisdictional authority
  • sufficientFactors content: Knowledge that an official had certified an unsafe building + discovered collapse danger + Engineer A's duty to alert authorities
  • counterfactual content: Had no certificate been issued or had Engineer A not learned of it, the specific decision to call the county building official may not have occurred, though some official notification would likely still be warranted
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew the building had been certified for occupancy despite structural deficiencies
  • interveningFactors content: County official's earlier certification of the modified building
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Occupancy Certificate Issuance', 'proeth:description': 'County building official issues certificate of occupancy after modifications'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Structural Hazard Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A discovers instability and learns of the certificate'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Building Official Contact', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A calls the county building official who issued the certificate'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.120059+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew the building had been certified for occupancy despite structural deficiencies",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "County building official issues certificate of occupancy after modifications",
      "proeth:element": "Occupancy Certificate Issuance",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A discovers instability and learns of the certificate",
      "proeth:element": "Structural Hazard Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A calls the county building official who issued the certificate",
      "proeth:element": "Building Official Contact",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Occupancy Certificate Issuance",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had no certificate been issued or had Engineer A not learned of it, the specific decision to call the county building official may not have occurred, though some official notification would likely still be warranted",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Building Official Contact",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "County official\u0027s earlier certification of the modified building"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Issuance of the certificate of occupancy by the county building official",
    "Engineer A\u0027s discovery of the structural hazard",
    "Engineer A\u0027s knowledge that the county official had jurisdictional authority"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (for the contact); county building official (for the certification)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Knowledge that an official had certified an unsafe building + discovered collapse danger + Engineer A\u0027s duty to alert authorities"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: The county building official did not return Engineer A’s phone call.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's phone call to the county building official
  • The official's decision or failure to respond
Sufficient Factors:
  • The call being placed + the official choosing not to return it
Counterfactual Test: Without the call, there could be no failure to return it; had the official responded, Engineer A's escalation obligation would have been at least partially satisfied through official channels
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: County building official
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Building Official Contact
    Engineer A calls the county building official
  2. Official Response Omission
    The county building official does not return the call
  3. Unresolved Hazard
    The regulatory channel stalls, leaving the collapse danger unaddressed by authorities
  4. Continuing Obligation
    Engineer A 'had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter' by contacting the supervisor, fire marshal, or other agency
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Building Official Contact
  • effect: Official Response Omission
  • responsibleAgent: County building official
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: The county building official did not return Engineer A’s phone call.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's phone call to the county building official; The official's decision or failure to respond
  • sufficientFactors content: The call being placed + the official choosing not to return it
  • counterfactual content: Without the call, there could be no failure to return it; had the official responded, Engineer A's escalation obligation would have been at least partially satisfied through official channels
  • agentKnowledge content: Received a call from a professional engineer regarding a structural danger in a building the official had certified
  • interveningFactors content: Possible administrative or workload factors, not stated in the record
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Building Official Contact', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A calls the county building official'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Official Response Omission', 'proeth:description': 'The county building official does not return the call'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Unresolved Hazard', 'proeth:description': 'The regulatory channel stalls, leaving the collapse danger unaddressed by authorities'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Continuing Obligation', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A 'had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter' by contacting the supervisor, fire marshal, or other agency"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.120078+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Received a call from a professional engineer regarding a structural danger in a building the official had certified",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The county building official did not return Engineer A\u2019s phone call.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A calls the county building official",
      "proeth:element": "Building Official Contact",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The county building official does not return the call",
      "proeth:element": "Official Response Omission",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The regulatory channel stalls, leaving the collapse danger unaddressed by authorities",
      "proeth:element": "Unresolved Hazard",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A \u0027had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter\u0027 by contacting the supervisor, fire marshal, or other agency",
      "proeth:element": "Continuing Obligation",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Building Official Contact",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the call, there could be no failure to return it; had the official responded, Engineer A\u0027s escalation obligation would have been at least partially satisfied through official channels",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Official Response Omission",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Possible administrative or workload factors, not stated in the record"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s phone call to the county building official",
    "The official\u0027s decision or failure to respond"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "County building official",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The call being placed + the official choosing not to return it"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A received a telephone call from the bridge inspector stating that the bridge needed to be closed due to the large number of rotten pilings. Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Rotting of a large number of wood pilings
  • Bridge inspector's discovery and report of the deterioration
  • Engineer A's authority as a local government engineer to close the bridge
Sufficient Factors:
  • Deteriorated pilings + inspector's report + Engineer A's prompt exercise of closure authority
Counterfactual Test: Without the piling deterioration and its report, no closure would have been ordered
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Bridge Piling Deterioration
    Large number of wood pilings rot; some piles do not reach the ground
  2. Inspector Report
    Bridge inspector calls Engineer A stating the bridge must be closed
  3. Emergency Bridge Closure
    Engineer A has barricades and signs erected within the hour
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Bridge Piling Deterioration
  • effect: Emergency Bridge Closure
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A received a telephone call from the bridge inspector stating that the bridge needed to be closed due to the large number of rotten pilings. Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon.
  • necessaryFactors content: Rotting of a large number of wood pilings; Bridge inspector's discovery and report of the deterioration; Engineer A's authority as a local government engineer to close the bridge
  • sufficientFactors content: Deteriorated pilings + inspector's report + Engineer A's prompt exercise of closure authority
  • counterfactual content: Without the piling deterioration and its report, no closure would have been ordered
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew from the inspector that the bridge needed to be closed due to rotten pilings
  • interveningFactors content: Decades of deferred maintenance and patchwork repairs
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Bridge Piling Deterioration', 'proeth:description': 'Large number of wood pilings rot; some piles do not reach the ground'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Inspector Report', 'proeth:description': 'Bridge inspector calls Engineer A stating the bridge must be closed'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Emergency Bridge Closure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A has barricades and signs erected within the hour'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.120099+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew from the inspector that the bridge needed to be closed due to rotten pilings",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A received a telephone call from the bridge inspector stating that the bridge needed to be closed due to the large number of rotten pilings. Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Large number of wood pilings rot; some piles do not reach the ground",
      "proeth:element": "Bridge Piling Deterioration",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Bridge inspector calls Engineer A stating the bridge must be closed",
      "proeth:element": "Inspector Report",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A has barricades and signs erected within the hour",
      "proeth:element": "Emergency Bridge Closure",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Bridge Piling Deterioration",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the piling deterioration and its report, no closure would have been ordered",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Emergency Bridge Closure",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Decades of deferred maintenance and patchwork repairs"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Rotting of a large number of wood pilings",
    "Bridge inspector\u0027s discovery and report of the deterioration",
    "Engineer A\u0027s authority as a local government engineer to close the bridge"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Deteriorated pilings + inspector\u0027s report + Engineer A\u0027s prompt exercise of closure authority"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit. No follow-up inspection was undertaken. Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing as well as significant movement of the bridge.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Nonengineer public works director's decision to use a retired, non-engineer inspector
  • Installation of only two crutch piles and reopening with a five-ton limit
  • Absence of follow-up inspection
  • Heavy vehicles (log trucks, tankers) crossing the compromised bridge
Sufficient Factors:
  • Inadequate crutch-pile remedy based on unqualified assessment + unenforced load limit + traffic loading on a deteriorated structure
Counterfactual Test: Had a licensed engineer evaluated the fix and had the five-ton limit been enforced with follow-up inspection, significant bridge movement under traffic would likely have been prevented or detected and stopped
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Nonengineer public works director (with Engineer A's escalation omission as contributing)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Unqualified Inspection Assignment
    Nonengineer director has a retired non-engineer inspector examine the bridge
  2. Inadequate Remedy Decision
    Two crutch piles installed; bridge reopened with a five-ton limit
  3. No Follow-up Inspection
    No follow-up inspection is undertaken after reopening
  4. Overweight Traffic Loading
    Log trucks and tankers cross the bridge on a regular basis
  5. Bridge Structural Movement
    Engineer A observes significant movement of the bridge under traffic
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Unqualified Inspection Assignment
  • effect: Bridge Structural Movement
  • responsibleAgent: Nonengineer public works director (with Engineer A's escalation omission as contributing)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit. No follow-up inspection was undertaken. Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing as well as significant movement of the bridge.
  • necessaryFactors content: Nonengineer public works director's decision to use a retired, non-engineer inspector; Installation of only two crutch piles and reopening with a five-ton limit; Absence of follow-up inspection; Heavy vehicles (log trucks, tankers) crossing the compromised bridge
  • sufficientFactors content: Inadequate crutch-pile remedy based on unqualified assessment + unenforced load limit + traffic loading on a deteriorated structure
  • counterfactual content: Had a licensed engineer evaluated the fix and had the five-ton limit been enforced with follow-up inspection, significant bridge movement under traffic would likely have been prevented or detected and stopped
  • agentKnowledge content: Director knew the bridge had been closed for rotten pilings and that a signed, sealed report required seven piling replacements
  • interveningFactors content: Public pressure and petition to reopen the bridge; Non-enforcement of the five-ton limit
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Unqualified Inspection Assignment', 'proeth:description': 'Nonengineer director has a retired non-engineer inspector examine the bridge'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Inadequate Remedy Decision', 'proeth:description': 'Two crutch piles installed; bridge reopened with a five-ton limit'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'No Follow-up Inspection', 'proeth:description': 'No follow-up inspection is undertaken after reopening'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Overweight Traffic Loading', 'proeth:description': 'Log trucks and tankers cross the bridge on a regular basis'}; {'proeth:step': 5, 'proeth:element': 'Bridge Structural Movement', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A observes significant movement of the bridge under traffic'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#CausalChain_8",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.120120+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Director knew the bridge had been closed for rotten pilings and that a signed, sealed report required seven piling replacements",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit. No follow-up inspection was undertaken. Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing as well as significant movement of the bridge.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Nonengineer director has a retired non-engineer inspector examine the bridge",
      "proeth:element": "Unqualified Inspection Assignment",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Two crutch piles installed; bridge reopened with a five-ton limit",
      "proeth:element": "Inadequate Remedy Decision",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "No follow-up inspection is undertaken after reopening",
      "proeth:element": "No Follow-up Inspection",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Log trucks and tankers cross the bridge on a regular basis",
      "proeth:element": "Overweight Traffic Loading",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A observes significant movement of the bridge under traffic",
      "proeth:element": "Bridge Structural Movement",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Unqualified Inspection Assignment",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had a licensed engineer evaluated the fix and had the five-ton limit been enforced with follow-up inspection, significant bridge movement under traffic would likely have been prevented or detected and stopped",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Bridge Structural Movement",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Public pressure and petition to reopen the bridge",
    "Non-enforcement of the five-ton limit"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Nonengineer public works director\u0027s decision to use a retired, non-engineer inspector",
    "Installation of only two crutch piles and reopening with a five-ton limit",
    "Absence of follow-up inspection",
    "Heavy vehicles (log trucks, tankers) crossing the compromised bridge"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Nonengineer public works director (with Engineer A\u0027s escalation omission as contributing)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Inadequate crutch-pile remedy based on unqualified assessment + unenforced load limit + traffic loading on a deteriorated structure"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Later, Jones proposed to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removed portions of the columns and footings that supported the roof. ... Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Jones's removal of portions of the columns and footings supporting the roof
  • Engineer A's original knowledge of the barn's design as its designer and builder
  • Engineer A learning of the extension
Sufficient Factors:
  • Removal of load-bearing supports + Engineer A's design knowledge + snow load exposure creating a recognizable collapse risk
Counterfactual Test: Had Jones not removed the supporting columns and footings, there would have been no structural deficiency for Engineer A to become concerned about
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Jones (new owner), with town approval as an intervening validation
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Structural Support Removal
    Jones removes portions of columns and footings supporting the barn roof
  2. Barn Modification Approval
    Town approves the changes; extension built; certificate of occupancy issued
  3. Barn Hazard Discovery
    Engineer A learns of the extension and becomes concerned about collapse under severe snow loads
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Structural Support Removal
  • effect: Barn Hazard Discovery
  • responsibleAgent: Jones (new owner), with town approval as an intervening validation
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Later, Jones proposed to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removed portions of the columns and footings that supported the roof. ... Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
  • necessaryFactors content: Jones's removal of portions of the columns and footings supporting the roof; Engineer A's original knowledge of the barn's design as its designer and builder; Engineer A learning of the extension
  • sufficientFactors content: Removal of load-bearing supports + Engineer A's design knowledge + snow load exposure creating a recognizable collapse risk
  • counterfactual content: Had Jones not removed the supporting columns and footings, there would have been no structural deficiency for Engineer A to become concerned about
  • agentKnowledge content: Jones's awareness of structural consequences is not stated; the town approved the changes and issued a certificate of occupancy
  • interveningFactors content: Town approval and certificate of occupancy despite the removed supports
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Structural Support Removal', 'proeth:description': 'Jones removes portions of columns and footings supporting the barn roof'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Barn Modification Approval', 'proeth:description': 'Town approves the changes; extension built; certificate of occupancy issued'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Barn Hazard Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A learns of the extension and becomes concerned about collapse under severe snow loads'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#CausalChain_9",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.120138+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Jones\u0027s awareness of structural consequences is not stated; the town approved the changes and issued a certificate of occupancy",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Later, Jones proposed to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removed portions of the columns and footings that supported the roof. ... Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Jones removes portions of columns and footings supporting the barn roof",
      "proeth:element": "Structural Support Removal",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Town approves the changes; extension built; certificate of occupancy issued",
      "proeth:element": "Barn Modification Approval",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A learns of the extension and becomes concerned about collapse under severe snow loads",
      "proeth:element": "Barn Hazard Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Structural Support Removal",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Jones not removed the supporting columns and footings, there would have been no structural deficiency for Engineer A to become concerned about",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Barn Hazard Discovery",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Town approval and certificate of occupancy despite the removed supports"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Jones\u0027s removal of portions of the columns and footings supporting the roof",
    "Engineer A\u0027s original knowledge of the barn\u0027s design as its designer and builder",
    "Engineer A learning of the extension"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Jones (new owner), with town approval as an intervening validation",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Removal of load-bearing supports + Engineer A\u0027s design knowledge + snow load exposure creating a recognizable collapse risk"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's discovery of the collapse concern
  • Engineer A's ethical obligation to protect public safety
  • Availability of the town supervisor as the jurisdiction's authority
Sufficient Factors:
  • Perceived collapse danger + Engineer A's decision to act on the NSPE Code's safety mandate by contacting the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction
Counterfactual Test: Without discovering the hazard, Engineer A would have had no basis to contact the town supervisor; per the Board, written notification to both owner and supervisor was additionally required
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Barn Hazard Discovery
    Engineer A learns of the extension and fears collapse under snow loads
  2. Verbal Official Notification
    Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor
  3. Official Inaction
    Supervisor agrees to review the matter but no action is taken
  4. Persisting Hazard
    The perceived structural deficiency remains unaddressed, and the owner is never notified in writing
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Barn Hazard Discovery
  • effect: Verbal Official Notification
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's discovery of the collapse concern; Engineer A's ethical obligation to protect public safety; Availability of the town supervisor as the jurisdiction's authority
  • sufficientFactors content: Perceived collapse danger + Engineer A's decision to act on the NSPE Code's safety mandate by contacting the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction
  • counterfactual content: Without discovering the hazard, Engineer A would have had no basis to contact the town supervisor; per the Board, written notification to both owner and supervisor was additionally required
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew the structure might collapse under severe snow loads based on his knowledge as original designer
  • interveningFactors content: Town supervisor agreed to review but took no action
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Barn Hazard Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A learns of the extension and fears collapse under snow loads'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Verbal Official Notification', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Official Inaction', 'proeth:description': 'Supervisor agrees to review the matter but no action is taken'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Persisting Hazard', 'proeth:description': 'The perceived structural deficiency remains unaddressed, and the owner is never notified in writing'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#CausalChain_10",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T14:45:20.120156+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew the structure might collapse under severe snow loads based on his knowledge as original designer",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A learns of the extension and fears collapse under snow loads",
      "proeth:element": "Barn Hazard Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor",
      "proeth:element": "Verbal Official Notification",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Supervisor agrees to review the matter but no action is taken",
      "proeth:element": "Official Inaction",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The perceived structural deficiency remains unaddressed, and the owner is never notified in writing",
      "proeth:element": "Persisting Hazard",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Barn Hazard Discovery",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without discovering the hazard, Engineer A would have had no basis to contact the town supervisor; per the Board, written notification to both owner and supervisor was additionally required",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Verbal Official Notification",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Town supervisor agreed to review but took no action"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s discovery of the collapse concern",
    "Engineer A\u0027s ethical obligation to protect public safety",
    "Availability of the town supervisor as the jurisdiction\u0027s authority"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Perceived collapse danger + Engineer A\u0027s decision to act on the NSPE Code\u0027s safety mandate by contacting the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (23)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
detailed inspection report before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		authorization for bridge replacement time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Within three weeks, Engineer A had obtained authorization for the bridge to be replaced.
Engineer A's observation of structural instability during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		fire origin-and-cause investigation time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building... [more]
recent structural changes to the building before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's preliminary investigation and conclusion time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the ro... [more]
construction modifications before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		issuance of certificate of occupancy time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county... [more]
conversation with Client B before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's conclusion about structural changes time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the buildi... [more]
Engineer A's conclusion of collapse danger meets
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins 		advising Client B and calling county building official time:intervalMeets
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalMeets 		Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
Engineer A's phone call to county building official before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		continued pursuit of resolution (contacting supervisor, fire marshal, other agencies) time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client... [more]
bridge construction by the state before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		transfer of bridge to counties time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		built by the state in the 1950s. It was part of the secondary roadway system given to the counties m... [more]
bridge inspector's telephone call before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		erection of barricades and signs time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A received a telephone call from the bridge inspector stating that the bridge needed to be ... [more]
erection of barricades (Friday) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		discovery of vandalized barricades (following Monday) time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river
discovery of vandalized barricades before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		installation of more permanent barricades and signs time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river... More permanent barricades ... [more]
bridge closure before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		detailed inspection report by consulting engineering firm time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Within a few days, a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed an... [more]
state and federal transportation department reviews before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		use of funds for bridge replacement time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Several state and federal transportation departments needed to complete their reviews and tasks befo... [more]
rally and petition to County Commission before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		County Commission decision not to reopen the bridge time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic w... [more]
retired bridge inspector's examination before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		installation of crutch piles and reopening with five-ton limit time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector... examine the bridge... [more]
bridge reopening with five-ton limit before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's observation of traffic and bridge movement time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		No follow-up inspection was undertaken. Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing as well as sign... [more]
sale of property to Jones before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Jones's barn extension and removal of columns/footings time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Later, Jones proposed to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removed portions of the colu... [more]
town approval of changes before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		construction of extension and issuance of certificate of occupancy time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		The changes were approved by the town, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was i... [more]
certificate of occupancy issuance (barn) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A learning of the extension and fearing snow-load collapse time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collaps... [more]
Engineer A's verbal contact with town supervisor before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		town supervisor's inaction time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action wa... [more]
notifying the current owner before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		notifying the town supervisor in writing time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns... [more]
verbal communication with town supervisor before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		written confirmation to town supervisor time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating his... [more]
written confirmation overlaps
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2 		continued monitoring of the situation time:intervalOverlaps
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalOverlaps 		follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating his... [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