This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-13 09:38; 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 147: Duty To Disclose Disciplinary Complaint To Client

21 entities 5 actions 2 events 5 causal chains 8 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 11 sequenced markers
Professional Engagement Retention Start of the engagement
Ethics Complaint Filing Before the state board contacts Engineer A, mid-engagement with Client B
Several months after the termination notice, precedent Case No. 83-1
Historical precedent, Case No. 90-4, after Engineer X gave two weeks notice
After two weeks notice, precedent Case No. 90-4
Historical precedent, Case No. 83-1, before and after Engineer A's termination
Design Services Performance Early in the engagement
Nondisclosure Decision Mid-engagement, after the state board contact
Client Confrontation Later in the engagement, after learning of the complaint
Board Complaint Notification During the rendering of services to Client B
Third-Party Disclosure Later, after Engineer A's nondisclosure decision
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 8 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
Board precedent Cases 83-1 and 90-4 time:intervalBefore Board's analysis of the present case
hypothetical proactive disclosure by Engineer A time:intervalBefore third parties' comments or questions to Client B
Client C project (prior services by Engineer A) time:intervalBefore Engineer A's services for Client B
Engineer A retained by Client B time:intervalBefore preparation of plans, specifications, and CPM schedule
state board contact regarding ethics complaint time:intervalDuring rendering of services to Client B
Client C's filing of the ethics complaint time:intervalBefore state board contact with Engineer A
Engineer A's decision not to notify Client B time:intervalBefore Client B learning of the complaint through a third party
Client B learning of the complaint time:intervalMeets Client B confronting Engineer A
Extracted Actions (5)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Client B retains Engineer A to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method schedule for a manufacturing facility.

Temporal Marker: Start of the engagement instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Active Client Engagement

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Obtain design services and a CPM schedule for the manufacturing facility

Required Capabilities:
Client procurement judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Client procurement judgment
  • initiates: Active Client Engagement
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Client B retains Engineer A to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method schedule for a manufacturing facility.
  • hasAgent content: Client B
  • temporalMarker content: Start of the engagement
  • eventRoleContext content: Client
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Obtain design services and a CPM schedule for the manufacturing facility
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#",
    "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/147#Action_Professional_Engagement_Retention",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T09:22:37.261877+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Client B retains Engineer A to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method schedule for a manufacturing facility.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Client",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Client B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Active Client Engagement"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Obtain design services and a CPM schedule for the manufacturing facility",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Client procurement judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Start of the engagement",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Professional Engagement Retention"
}

Description: Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule for Client B's manufacturing facility project.

Temporal Marker: Early in the engagement interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Deliverables Completed

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Deliver the contracted plans, specifications, and CPM schedule to Client B

Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Faithful Agent and Trustee Obligation
Guided By Principles:
  • Faithful Agent and Trustee
Required Capabilities:
Design engineering CPM scheduling
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Faithful Agent and Trustee Obligation
  • guidedByPrinciple: Faithful Agent and Trustee
  • requiresCapability: Design engineering; CPM scheduling
  • initiates: Deliverables Completed
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule for Client B's manufacturing facility project.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Early in the engagement
  • eventRoleContext content: Design Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Deliver the contracted plans, specifications, and CPM schedule to Client B
  • textReferences content: Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#",
    "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/147#Action_Design_Services_Performance",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T09:22:37.262020+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule for Client B\u0027s manufacturing facility project.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Design Engineer",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Faithful Agent and Trustee Obligation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Faithful Agent and Trustee"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Deliverables Completed"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Deliver the contracted plans, specifications, and CPM schedule to Client B",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Design engineering",
    "CPM scheduling"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Early in the engagement",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Design Services Performance"
}

Description: Client C files an ethics complaint against Engineer A with the state board of professional engineers, alleging that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform services on a prior, similar project.

Temporal Marker: Before the state board contacts Engineer A, mid-engagement with Client B instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Pending Ethics Complaint

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Have the state board investigate Engineer A's alleged lack of competence

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Potential damage to Engineer A's professional reputation
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Pending Ethics Complaint
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Client C files an ethics complaint against Engineer A with the state board of professional engineers, alleging that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform services on a prior, similar project.
  • hasAgent content: Client C
  • temporalMarker content: Before the state board contacts Engineer A, mid-engagement with Client B
  • eventRoleContext content: Former Client
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Have the state board investigate Engineer A's alleged lack of competence
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Potential damage to Engineer A's professional reputation
  • textReferences content: an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B; Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#",
    "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/147#Action_Ethics_Complaint_Filing",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T09:22:37.262065+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Client C files an ethics complaint against Engineer A with the state board of professional engineers, alleging that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform services on a prior, similar project.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Former Client",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential damage to Engineer A\u0027s professional reputation"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Client C",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Pending Ethics Complaint"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Have the state board investigate Engineer A\u0027s alleged lack of competence",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Before the state board contacts Engineer A, mid-engagement with Client B",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B",
    "Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Ethics Complaint Filing"
}

Description: Engineer A decides not to notify Client B of the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C, treating disclosure as unnecessary. This is the pivotal omission the case evaluates.

Temporal Marker: Mid-engagement, after the state board contact instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Client Uninformed of Complaint

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Avoid disclosing potentially damaging, unproven allegations to Client B

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Client B might learn of the complaint from another source and react negatively
Required Capabilities:
Professional judgment on disclosure
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Professional judgment on disclosure
  • initiates: Client Uninformed of Complaint
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A decides not to notify Client B of the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C, treating disclosure as unnecessary. This is the pivotal omission the case evaluates.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Mid-engagement, after the state board contact
  • eventRoleContext content: Design Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Avoid disclosing potentially damaging, unproven allegations to Client B
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Client B might learn of the complaint from another source and react negatively
  • textReferences content: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#",
    "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/147#Action_Nondisclosure_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T09:22:37.262100+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A decides not to notify Client B of the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C, treating disclosure as unnecessary. This is the pivotal omission the case evaluates.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Design Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Client B might learn of the complaint from another source and react negatively"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Client Uninformed of Complaint"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Avoid disclosing potentially damaging, unproven allegations to Client B",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment on disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Mid-engagement, after the state board contact",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Nondisclosure Decision"
}

Description: After learning of the ethics complaint through another party, Client B tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to his attention.

Temporal Marker: Later in the engagement, after learning of the complaint instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Client Trust Strained
Terminates (1)
  • Client Uninformed of Complaint

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Express displeasure and communicate the expectation that Engineer A should have disclosed the complaint

Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Client Trust Strained
  • terminates: Client Uninformed of Complaint
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: After learning of the ethics complaint through another party, Client B tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to his attention.
  • hasAgent content: Client B
  • temporalMarker content: Later in the engagement, after learning of the complaint
  • eventRoleContext content: Client
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Express displeasure and communicate the expectation that Engineer A should have disclosed the complaint
  • textReferences content: Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B’s attention.
  • 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/147#",
    "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/147#Action_Client_Confrontation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T09:22:37.262127+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "After learning of the ethics complaint through another party, Client B tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to his attention.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Client",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Client B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Client Trust Strained"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Express displeasure and communicate the expectation that Engineer A should have disclosed the complaint",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Later in the engagement, after learning of the complaint",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Client Uninformed of Complaint"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B\u2019s attention."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Client Confrontation"
}
Extracted Events (2)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: The state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding the ethics complaint filed by Client C alleging that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform similar services, making Engineer A aware of the pending complaint.

Temporal Marker: During the rendering of services to Client B instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Pending Ethics Complaint
  • Engineer Aware of Complaint

Caused By Action: Action_Ethics_Complaint_Filing

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#Action_Ethics_Complaint_Filing
  • initiates: Pending Ethics Complaint; Engineer Aware of Complaint
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding the ethics complaint filed by Client C alleging that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform similar services, making Engineer A aware of the pending complaint.
  • temporalMarker content: During the rendering of services to Client B
  • textReferences content: the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B
  • eventType content: automatic
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#",
    "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/147#Event_Board_Complaint_Notification",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T09:22:37.262206+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#Action_Ethics_Complaint_Filing",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.95",
  "proeth:description": "The state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding the ethics complaint filed by Client C alleging that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform similar services, making Engineer A aware of the pending complaint.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Pending Ethics Complaint",
    "Engineer Aware of Complaint"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the rendering of services to Client B",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Board Complaint Notification"
}

Description: Client B learns of the ethics complaint against Engineer A through another party rather than from Engineer A, leading Client B to feel that Engineer A should have raised the matter.

Temporal Marker: Later, after Engineer A's nondisclosure decision instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Client Aware of Complaint
  • Strained Client Relationship
Terminates (1)
  • Client Unaware of Complaint
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Client Aware of Complaint; Strained Client Relationship
  • terminates: Client Unaware of Complaint
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Client B learns of the ethics complaint against Engineer A through another party rather than from Engineer A, leading Client B to feel that Engineer A should have raised the matter.
  • temporalMarker content: Later, after Engineer A's nondisclosure decision
  • textReferences content: Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 6
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#",
    "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/147#Event_Third-Party_Disclosure",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T09:22:37.262748+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.93",
  "proeth:description": "Client B learns of the ethics complaint against Engineer A through another party rather than from Engineer A, leading Client B to feel that Engineer A should have raised the matter.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Client Aware of Complaint",
    "Strained Client Relationship"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Later, after Engineer A\u0027s nondisclosure decision",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Client Unaware of Complaint"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Third-Party Disclosure"
}
Causal Chains (5)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Client C's decision to file a formal complaint with the state board
  • Client C's belief that Engineer A lacked competence to perform the services
  • Existence of a state board mechanism for receiving and processing ethics complaints
Sufficient Factors:
  • Filing of the complaint combined with the board's standard procedure of contacting the accused engineer
Counterfactual Test: Without Client C filing the complaint, the state board would have had no basis to contact Engineer A; the notification would not have occurred
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Client C
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Ethics Complaint Filing
    Client C files an ethics complaint against Engineer A alleging lack of competence
  2. Board Processing
    State board of professional engineers receives and processes the complaint
  3. Board Complaint Notification
    The state board contacts Engineer A regarding the pending ethics complaint while Engineer A is rendering services to Client B
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Ethics Complaint Filing
  • effect: Board Complaint Notification
  • responsibleAgent: Client C
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B.
  • necessaryFactors content: Client C's decision to file a formal complaint with the state board; Client C's belief that Engineer A lacked competence to perform the services; Existence of a state board mechanism for receiving and processing ethics complaints
  • sufficientFactors content: Filing of the complaint combined with the board's standard procedure of contacting the accused engineer
  • counterfactual content: Without Client C filing the complaint, the state board would have had no basis to contact Engineer A; the notification would not have occurred
  • agentKnowledge content: Client C believed, based on services rendered on his own project, that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question
  • interveningFactors content: State board's administrative process for handling complaints
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Ethics Complaint Filing', 'proeth:description': 'Client C files an ethics complaint against Engineer A alleging lack of competence'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Board Processing', 'proeth:description': 'State board of professional engineers receives and processes the complaint'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Board Complaint Notification', 'proeth:description': 'The state board contacts Engineer A regarding the pending ethics complaint while Engineer A is rendering services to Client B'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#",
    "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/147#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T09:22:37.262959+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Client C believed, based on services rendered on his own project, that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client C files an ethics complaint against Engineer A alleging lack of competence",
      "proeth:element": "Ethics Complaint Filing",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "State board of professional engineers receives and processes the complaint",
      "proeth:element": "Board Processing",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The state board contacts Engineer A regarding the pending ethics complaint while Engineer A is rendering services to Client B",
      "proeth:element": "Board Complaint Notification",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Ethics Complaint Filing",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Client C filing the complaint, the state board would have had no basis to contact Engineer A; the notification would not have occurred",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Board Complaint Notification",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "State board\u0027s administrative process for handling complaints"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Client C\u0027s decision to file a formal complaint with the state board",
    "Client C\u0027s belief that Engineer A lacked competence to perform the services",
    "Existence of a state board mechanism for receiving and processing ethics complaints"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Client C",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Filing of the complaint combined with the board\u0027s standard procedure of contacting the accused engineer"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint. Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's decision to withhold information about the pending complaint
  • Existence of the pending complaint as information capable of circulating
  • A third party with knowledge of the complaint who communicated it to Client B
Sufficient Factors:
  • Nondisclosure by Engineer A combined with the complaint's availability to third parties who had contact with Client B
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A provided Client B with limited background information first, Client B would not have learned of the complaint solely through another party; the discovery channel would have been Engineer A himself
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Board Complaint Notification
    Engineer A is contacted by the state board and becomes aware of Client C's complaint
  2. Nondisclosure Decision
    Engineer A decides it is not necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
  3. Third-Party Disclosure
    Client B learns of the ethics complaint through another party rather than from Engineer A
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Nondisclosure Decision
  • effect: Third-Party Disclosure
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint. Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's decision to withhold information about the pending complaint; Existence of the pending complaint as information capable of circulating; A third party with knowledge of the complaint who communicated it to Client B
  • sufficientFactors content: Nondisclosure by Engineer A combined with the complaint's availability to third parties who had contact with Client B
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A provided Client B with limited background information first, Client B would not have learned of the complaint solely through another party; the discovery channel would have been Engineer A himself
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew of the pending complaint after board notification but did not believe it was necessary to notify Client B
  • interveningFactors content: Third party independently possessing and sharing knowledge of the complaint
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Board Complaint Notification', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A is contacted by the state board and becomes aware of Client C's complaint"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Nondisclosure Decision', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A decides it is not necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Third-Party Disclosure', 'proeth:description': 'Client B learns of the ethics complaint through another party rather than from Engineer A'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#",
    "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/147#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T09:22:37.262999+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew of the pending complaint after board notification but did not believe it was necessary to notify Client B",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint. Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A is contacted by the state board and becomes aware of Client C\u0027s complaint",
      "proeth:element": "Board Complaint Notification",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A decides it is not necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint",
      "proeth:element": "Nondisclosure Decision",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client B learns of the ethics complaint through another party rather than from Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Third-Party Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Nondisclosure Decision",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A provided Client B with limited background information first, Client B would not have learned of the complaint solely through another party; the discovery channel would have been Engineer A himself",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Third-Party Disclosure",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Third party independently possessing and sharing knowledge of the complaint"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s decision to withhold information about the pending complaint",
    "Existence of the pending complaint as information capable of circulating",
    "A third party with knowledge of the complaint who communicated it to Client B"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Nondisclosure by Engineer A combined with the complaint\u0027s availability to third parties who had contact with Client B"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B’s attention.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Client B learning of the complaint at all
  • Client B learning of it from a source other than Engineer A
  • Ongoing professional relationship between Client B and Engineer A giving Client B an expectation of candor
Sufficient Factors:
  • Discovery of the withheld complaint via a third party combined with Client B's expectation that Engineer A, as his retained engineer, should have disclosed it
Counterfactual Test: Had Client B never learned of the complaint, or had he learned of it directly from Engineer A with appropriate context, the upset confrontation over concealment would likely not have occurred
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (as the party whose nondisclosure created the conditions), with Client B as the confronting actor
Type: indirect
Within Agent Control: No

Causal Sequence:
  1. Nondisclosure Decision
    Engineer A withholds the complaint information from Client B
  2. Third-Party Disclosure
    Client B learns of the ethics complaint through another party
  3. Client Confrontation
    Client B tells Engineer A he is upset and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to his attention
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Third-Party Disclosure
  • effect: Client Confrontation
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (as the party whose nondisclosure created the conditions), with Client B as the confronting actor
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B’s attention.
  • necessaryFactors content: Client B learning of the complaint at all; Client B learning of it from a source other than Engineer A; Ongoing professional relationship between Client B and Engineer A giving Client B an expectation of candor
  • sufficientFactors content: Discovery of the withheld complaint via a third party combined with Client B's expectation that Engineer A, as his retained engineer, should have disclosed it
  • counterfactual content: Had Client B never learned of the complaint, or had he learned of it directly from Engineer A with appropriate context, the upset confrontation over concealment would likely not have occurred
  • agentKnowledge content: Client B, upon learning of the allegations, knew Engineer A had not brought the matter to his attention
  • interveningFactors content: The unnamed third party who conveyed the information to Client B; Client B's subjective reaction to the allegations
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Nondisclosure Decision', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A withholds the complaint information from Client B'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Third-Party Disclosure', 'proeth:description': 'Client B learns of the ethics complaint through another party'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Client Confrontation', 'proeth:description': 'Client B tells Engineer A he is upset and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to his attention'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: indirect
  • withinAgentControl assessment: False
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#",
    "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/147#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T09:22:37.263023+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Client B, upon learning of the allegations, knew Engineer A had not brought the matter to his attention",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B\u2019s attention.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A withholds the complaint information from Client B",
      "proeth:element": "Nondisclosure Decision",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client B learns of the ethics complaint through another party",
      "proeth:element": "Third-Party Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client B tells Engineer A he is upset and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to his attention",
      "proeth:element": "Client Confrontation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Third-Party Disclosure",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Client B never learned of the complaint, or had he learned of it directly from Engineer A with appropriate context, the upset confrontation over concealment would likely not have occurred",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Client Confrontation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "The unnamed third party who conveyed the information to Client B",
    "Client B\u0027s subjective reaction to the allegations"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Client B learning of the complaint at all",
    "Client B learning of it from a source other than Engineer A",
    "Ongoing professional relationship between Client B and Engineer A giving Client B an expectation of candor"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (as the party whose nondisclosure created the conditions), with Client B as the confronting actor",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Discovery of the withheld complaint via a third party combined with Client B\u0027s expectation that Engineer A, as his retained engineer, should have disclosed it"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": false
}

Causal Language: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility. Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Client B's decision to retain Engineer A
  • A defined scope of work covering design services and a CPM schedule
  • Engineer A's acceptance of the engagement
Sufficient Factors:
  • Retention agreement combined with Engineer A's willingness and capacity to perform the contracted services
Counterfactual Test: Without being retained by Client B, Engineer A would not have prepared the plans, specifications, and CPM schedule for this manufacturing facility
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Client B (retention) and Engineer A (performance)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Professional Engagement Retention
    Client B retains Engineer A for design services and a CPM schedule
  2. Design Services Performance
    Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Professional Engagement Retention
  • effect: Design Services Performance
  • responsibleAgent: Client B (retention) and Engineer A (performance)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility. Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule.
  • necessaryFactors content: Client B's decision to retain Engineer A; A defined scope of work covering design services and a CPM schedule; Engineer A's acceptance of the engagement
  • sufficientFactors content: Retention agreement combined with Engineer A's willingness and capacity to perform the contracted services
  • counterfactual content: Without being retained by Client B, Engineer A would not have prepared the plans, specifications, and CPM schedule for this manufacturing facility
  • agentKnowledge content: Both parties understood the scope: design services and a CPM schedule for a manufacturing facility
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Professional Engagement Retention', 'proeth:description': 'Client B retains Engineer A for design services and a CPM schedule'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Design Services Performance', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#",
    "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/147#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T09:22:37.263044+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Both parties understood the scope: design services and a CPM schedule for a manufacturing facility",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility. Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client B retains Engineer A for design services and a CPM schedule",
      "proeth:element": "Professional Engagement Retention",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule",
      "proeth:element": "Design Services Performance",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Professional Engagement Retention",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without being retained by Client B, Engineer A would not have prepared the plans, specifications, and CPM schedule for this manufacturing facility",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Design Services Performance",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Client B\u0027s decision to retain Engineer A",
    "A defined scope of work covering design services and a CPM schedule",
    "Engineer A\u0027s acceptance of the engagement"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Client B (retention) and Engineer A (performance)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Retention agreement combined with Engineer A\u0027s willingness and capacity to perform the contracted services"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's actual termination from Engineer B's firm
  • Engineer B's continued distribution of the previously printed brochure
  • The brochure's identification of Engineer A as a 'key employee' pertinent to clients' selection decisions
Sufficient Factors:
  • Continued brochure distribution after actual termination, combined with intent to enhance the firm's qualifications, rendered the distribution a misrepresentation of pertinent facts
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A not been terminated (or had Engineer B apprised prospective clients of the pending termination during negotiation), the brochure distribution would not have constituted an unethical misrepresentation
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer B (precedent Case No. 83-1)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Termination Notice
    Engineer B notifies Engineer A of termination due to lack of work
  2. Employee Termination
    Engineer A's employment with Engineer B actually ends
  3. Misleading Brochure Distribution
    Engineer B continues distributing the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after the actual termination
  4. Client Deception Risk
    Potential clients could be misled into believing Engineer A would be available for consultation on future projects
  5. Ethics Violation Finding
    The Board concludes the conduct was a misrepresentation of pertinent facts violating the NSPE Code
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Employee Termination
  • effect: Misleading Brochure Distribution
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer B (precedent Case No. 83-1)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's actual termination from Engineer B's firm; Engineer B's continued distribution of the previously printed brochure; The brochure's identification of Engineer A as a 'key employee' pertinent to clients' selection decisions
  • sufficientFactors content: Continued brochure distribution after actual termination, combined with intent to enhance the firm's qualifications, rendered the distribution a misrepresentation of pertinent facts
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A not been terminated (or had Engineer B apprised prospective clients of the pending termination during negotiation), the brochure distribution would not have constituted an unethical misrepresentation
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer B was well aware of the impending termination of Engineer A, as Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A
  • interveningFactors content: Pre-existing printed brochures already in circulation
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Termination Notice', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B notifies Engineer A of termination due to lack of work'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Employee Termination', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A's employment with Engineer B actually ends"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Misleading Brochure Distribution', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B continues distributing the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after the actual termination'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Client Deception Risk', 'proeth:description': 'Potential clients could be misled into believing Engineer A would be available for consultation on future projects'}; {'proeth:step': 5, 'proeth:element': 'Ethics Violation Finding', 'proeth:description': 'The Board concludes the conduct was a misrepresentation of pertinent facts violating the NSPE Code'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#",
    "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/147#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T09:22:37.263064+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer B was well aware of the impending termination of Engineer A, as Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A\u0027s actual termination.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B notifies Engineer A of termination due to lack of work",
      "proeth:element": "Termination Notice",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s employment with Engineer B actually ends",
      "proeth:element": "Employee Termination",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B continues distributing the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after the actual termination",
      "proeth:element": "Misleading Brochure Distribution",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Potential clients could be misled into believing Engineer A would be available for consultation on future projects",
      "proeth:element": "Client Deception Risk",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The Board concludes the conduct was a misrepresentation of pertinent facts violating the NSPE Code",
      "proeth:element": "Ethics Violation Finding",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Employee Termination",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A not been terminated (or had Engineer B apprised prospective clients of the pending termination during negotiation), the brochure distribution would not have constituted an unethical misrepresentation",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Misleading Brochure Distribution",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Pre-existing printed brochures already in circulation"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s actual termination from Engineer B\u0027s firm",
    "Engineer B\u0027s continued distribution of the previously printed brochure",
    "The brochure\u0027s identification of Engineer A as a \u0027key employee\u0027 pertinent to clients\u0027 selection decisions"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B (precedent Case No. 83-1)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Continued brochure distribution after actual termination, combined with intent to enhance the firm\u0027s qualifications, rendered the distribution a misrepresentation of pertinent facts"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (8)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
Board precedent Cases 83-1 and 90-4 before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Board's analysis of the present case time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		The Board has reviewed a number of factual situations over the years... The facts in the present cas... [more]
hypothetical proactive disclosure by Engineer A before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		third parties' comments or questions to Client B time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A would be providing Client B with early notice of the pending matter so that Client B will... [more]
Client C project (prior services by Engineer A) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's services for Client B time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project ... [more]
Engineer A retained by Client B before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		preparation of plans, specifications, and CPM schedule time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services... Engineer A prepares the plans and s... [more]
state board contact regarding ethics complaint during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		rendering of services to Client B time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engine... [more]
Client C's filing of the ethics complaint before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		state board contact with Engineer A time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed ag... [more]
Engineer A's decision not to notify Client B before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Client B learning of the complaint through a third party time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint. Later, thro... [more]
Client B learning of the complaint meets
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins 		Client B confronting Engineer A time:intervalMeets
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalMeets 		Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is ups... [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