This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-13 04:27; 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 175: Public Welfare - Duty Of Government Engineer

27 entities 7 actions 2 events 8 causal chains 9 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 9 sequenced markers
Expedited Permit Order Beginning of the case, before Engineer A's technical review
Technical Adequacy Assessment After receiving the superior's order, before contacting the registration board
Registration Board Consultation After forming his technical opinion, before refusing to issue the permit
Board Warning Response After Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and before he refuses to issue the permit
Permit Issuance Refusal After receiving the registration board's warning
Findings Submission Concurrent with his refusal to issue the permit
Permit Authorization After Engineer A's refusal and submission of findings
Investigation Initiation Most recent event, ongoing at the time of the case
Media Publicity After the department authorized the issuance of the permit
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 9 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
Engineer A's inquiry to the state registration board time:intervalDuring permit preparation dispute with superior
superior's order to prepare the permit expeditiously time:intervalBefore Engineer A's conclusion that plans are inadequate
Engineer A's conclusion that plans violate the 1990 Clean Air Act time:intervalBefore Engineer A contacting the state engineering registration board
registration board's warning of possible license suspension/revocation time:intervalBefore Engineer A's refusal to issue the permit
Engineer A's refusal and submission of findings to superior time:intervalBefore department's authorization of the permit
department's authorization of the permit time:intervalBefore widespread media publicity
widespread media publicity time:intervalBefore state authorities' investigation
state authorities' investigation time:intervalOverlaps Board of Ethical Review's discussion/analysis
prior BER precedent decisions (65-12, 82-5, 88-6) time:intervalBefore current case analysis
Extracted Actions (7)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer A's superior orders him to draw up the construction permit for the power plant expeditiously and instructs him to avoid any hang-ups with respect to technical issues.

Temporal Marker: Beginning of the case, before Engineer A's technical review instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Time Pressure State
  • Employer Directive Conflict State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Rapid issuance of the construction permit without technical delays

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Pressure on Engineer A to overlook regulatory compliance concerns
Required Capabilities:
Administrative authority Permit process management
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Administrative authority; Permit process management
  • initiates: Time Pressure State; Employer Directive Conflict State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A's superior orders him to draw up the construction permit for the power plant expeditiously and instructs him to avoid any hang-ups with respect to technical issues.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A's superior
  • temporalMarker content: Beginning of the case, before Engineer A's technical review
  • eventRoleContext content: state environmental protection division supervisor
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Rapid issuance of the construction permit without technical delays
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Pressure on Engineer A to overlook regulatory compliance concerns
  • textReferences content: is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility; He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and "avoid any hang-ups" with respect to technical issues
  • 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/175#",
    "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/175#Action_Expedited_Permit_Order",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.649196+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s superior orders him to draw up the construction permit for the power plant expeditiously and instructs him to avoid any hang-ups with respect to technical issues.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "state environmental protection division supervisor",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Pressure on Engineer A to overlook regulatory compliance concerns"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A\u0027s superior",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Time Pressure State",
    "Employer Directive Conflict State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Rapid issuance of the construction permit without technical delays",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Administrative authority",
    "Permit process management"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Beginning of the case, before Engineer A\u0027s technical review",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility",
    "He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and \"avoid any hang-ups\" with respect to technical issues"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Expedited Permit Order"
}

Description: Engineer A reviews the plans and forms the professional judgment that they are inadequate to meet regulation requirements, concluding that outside scrubbers are necessary and that issuing the permit without them would violate the 1990 Clean Air Act.

Temporal Marker: After receiving the superior's order, before contacting the registration board interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Technical Disagreement State
  • Regulatory Noncompliance Concern State

Mental State: deliberate professional judgment

Intended Outcome: Determine whether the permit as drafted complies with air pollution standards

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Conflict with his superior's competing technical view
  • Delay of the permit process
Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public
Guided By Principles:
  • Paramount Public Safety, Health and Welfare Principle
Required Capabilities:
Environmental engineering expertise Regulatory compliance analysis
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Paramount Public Safety, Health and Welfare Principle
  • requiresCapability: Environmental engineering expertise; Regulatory compliance analysis
  • initiates: Technical Disagreement State; Regulatory Noncompliance Concern State
  • raisesObligation: Obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A reviews the plans and forms the professional judgment that they are inadequate to meet regulation requirements, concluding that outside scrubbers are necessary and that issuing the permit without them would violate the 1990 Clean Air Act.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: After receiving the superior's order, before contacting the registration board
  • eventRoleContext content: environmental engineer, state environmental protection division
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate professional judgment
  • intendedOutcome content: Determine whether the permit as drafted complies with air pollution standards
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Conflict with his superior's competing technical view; Delay of the permit process
  • textReferences content: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act
  • 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/175#",
    "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/175#Action_Technical_Adequacy_Assessment",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.649615+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A reviews the plans and forms the professional judgment that they are inadequate to meet regulation requirements, concluding that outside scrubbers are necessary and that issuing the permit without them would violate the 1990 Clean Air Act.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "environmental engineer, state environmental protection division",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Conflict with his superior\u0027s competing technical view",
    "Delay of the permit process"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Paramount Public Safety, Health and Welfare Principle"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate professional judgment",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Technical Disagreement State",
    "Regulatory Noncompliance Concern State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Determine whether the permit as drafted complies with air pollution standards",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Environmental engineering expertise",
    "Regulatory compliance analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After receiving the superior\u0027s order, before contacting the registration board",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Technical Adequacy Assessment"
}

Description: Engineer A proactively contacts the state engineering registration board to determine whether preparing a permit that violated environmental regulations could jeopardize his engineering license.

Temporal Marker: After forming his technical opinion, before refusing to issue the permit instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • License Risk Awareness State

Mental State: deliberate, seeking authoritative guidance

Intended Outcome: Clarify his licensure obligations before deciding whether to prepare the permit

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Confirmation that his license could be at risk, hardening his position against his employer
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Obligation to act consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code
Guided By Principles:
  • Paramount Public Safety, Health and Welfare Principle
Required Capabilities:
Knowledge of licensure requirements Professional judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Obligation to act consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code
  • guidedByPrinciple: Paramount Public Safety, Health and Welfare Principle
  • requiresCapability: Knowledge of licensure requirements; Professional judgment
  • initiates: License Risk Awareness State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A proactively contacts the state engineering registration board to determine whether preparing a permit that violated environmental regulations could jeopardize his engineering license.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: After forming his technical opinion, before refusing to issue the permit
  • eventRoleContext content: environmental engineer, state environmental protection division
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate, seeking authoritative guidance
  • intendedOutcome content: Clarify his licensure obligations before deciding whether to prepare the permit
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Confirmation that his license could be at risk, hardening his position against his employer
  • textReferences content: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations; Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law
  • 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/175#",
    "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/175#Action_Registration_Board_Consultation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.649694+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A proactively contacts the state engineering registration board to determine whether preparing a permit that violated environmental regulations could jeopardize his engineering license.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "environmental engineer, state environmental protection division",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Confirmation that his license could be at risk, hardening his position against his employer"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Obligation to act consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Paramount Public Safety, Health and Welfare Principle"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate, seeking authoritative guidance",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "License Risk Awareness State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Clarify his licensure obligations before deciding whether to prepare the permit",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Knowledge of licensure requirements",
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After forming his technical opinion, before refusing to issue the permit",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations",
    "Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Registration Board Consultation"
}

Description: Engineer A refuses to issue the construction permit after concluding it would violate air pollution standards and after being warned by the registration board about license risk.

Temporal Marker: After receiving the registration board's warning instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Permit Refusal State
  • Professional Disassociation State

Mental State: deliberate, conscientious refusal

Intended Outcome: Prevent issuance of a permit that would violate the 1990 Clean Air Act and protect the public health

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Conflict with his superior and department
  • Possible loss of employment
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (2)
  • Obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public
  • Obligation to refuse to issue the permit and stand by his position
Guided By Principles:
  • Paramount Public Safety, Health and Welfare Principle
Required Capabilities:
Environmental engineering expertise Professional integrity Regulatory compliance analysis
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public; Obligation to refuse to issue the permit and stand by his position
  • guidedByPrinciple: Paramount Public Safety, Health and Welfare Principle
  • requiresCapability: Environmental engineering expertise; Professional integrity; Regulatory compliance analysis
  • initiates: Permit Refusal State; Professional Disassociation State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A refuses to issue the construction permit after concluding it would violate air pollution standards and after being warned by the registration board about license risk.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: After receiving the registration board's warning
  • eventRoleContext content: environmental engineer, state environmental protection division
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate, conscientious refusal
  • intendedOutcome content: Prevent issuance of a permit that would violate the 1990 Clean Air Act and protect the public health
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Conflict with his superior and department; Possible loss of employment
  • textReferences content: Engineer A refused to issue the permit; Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit
  • 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/175#",
    "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/175#Action_Permit_Issuance_Refusal",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.649728+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A refuses to issue the construction permit after concluding it would violate air pollution standards and after being warned by the registration board about license risk.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "environmental engineer, state environmental protection division",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Conflict with his superior and department",
    "Possible loss of employment"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public",
    "Obligation to refuse to issue the permit and stand by his position"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Paramount Public Safety, Health and Welfare Principle"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate, conscientious refusal",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Permit Refusal State",
    "Professional Disassociation State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Prevent issuance of a permit that would violate the 1990 Clean Air Act and protect the public health",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Environmental engineering expertise",
    "Professional integrity",
    "Regulatory compliance analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After receiving the registration board\u0027s warning",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A refused to issue the permit",
    "Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Permit Issuance Refusal"
}

Description: Engineer A formally submits his findings concerning the inadequacy of the plans to his superior, documenting his objection to issuing the permit.

Temporal Marker: Concurrent with his refusal to issue the permit instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Documented Objection State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Place his technical objections on the record with his superior

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • The department could still authorize the permit over his objection
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public
Guided By Principles:
  • Paramount Public Safety, Health and Welfare Principle
Required Capabilities:
Technical documentation Environmental engineering expertise
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public
  • guidedByPrinciple: Paramount Public Safety, Health and Welfare Principle
  • requiresCapability: Technical documentation; Environmental engineering expertise
  • initiates: Documented Objection State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A formally submits his findings concerning the inadequacy of the plans to his superior, documenting his objection to issuing the permit.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Concurrent with his refusal to issue the permit
  • eventRoleContext content: environmental engineer, state environmental protection division
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Place his technical objections on the record with his superior
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: The department could still authorize the permit over his objection
  • textReferences content: submitted his findings to his superior
  • 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/175#",
    "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/175#Action_Findings_Submission",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.649757+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A formally submits his findings concerning the inadequacy of the plans to his superior, documenting his objection to issuing the permit.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "environmental engineer, state environmental protection division",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "The department could still authorize the permit over his objection"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Paramount Public Safety, Health and Welfare Principle"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Documented Objection State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Place his technical objections on the record with his superior",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Technical documentation",
    "Environmental engineering expertise"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Concurrent with his refusal to issue the permit",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "submitted his findings to his superior"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Findings Submission"
}

Description: The department authorizes issuance of the construction permit despite Engineer A's refusal and his documented findings that the plans were inadequate.

Temporal Marker: After Engineer A's refusal and submission of findings instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Permit Issued State
  • Potential Regulatory Violation State
Terminates (1)
  • Permit Refusal State

Mental State: deliberate institutional decision

Intended Outcome: Proceed with the power plant construction permit

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Possible violation of air pollution standards under the 1990 Clean Air Act
Required Capabilities:
Permitting authority
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Permitting authority
  • initiates: Permit Issued State; Potential Regulatory Violation State
  • terminates: Permit Refusal State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The department authorizes issuance of the construction permit despite Engineer A's refusal and his documented findings that the plans were inadequate.
  • hasAgent content: The department
  • temporalMarker content: After Engineer A's refusal and submission of findings
  • eventRoleContext content: state environmental protection division
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate institutional decision
  • intendedOutcome content: Proceed with the power plant construction permit
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Possible violation of air pollution standards under the 1990 Clean Air Act
  • textReferences content: The department authorized the issuance of the permit
  • 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/175#",
    "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/175#Action_Permit_Authorization",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.650454+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The department authorizes issuance of the construction permit despite Engineer A\u0027s refusal and his documented findings that the plans were inadequate.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "state environmental protection division",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Possible violation of air pollution standards under the 1990 Clean Air Act"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "The department",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate institutional decision",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Permit Issued State",
    "Potential Regulatory Violation State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Proceed with the power plant construction permit",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Permitting authority"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Engineer A\u0027s refusal and submission of findings",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Permit Refusal State"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The department authorized the issuance of the permit"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Permit Authorization"
}

Description: State authorities open an investigation into the permit authorization following widespread publicity of the case in the news media.

Temporal Marker: Most recent event, ongoing at the time of the case interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Ongoing Investigation State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Investigate the circumstances of the permit issuance

Required Capabilities:
Regulatory oversight authority
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Regulatory oversight authority
  • initiates: Ongoing Investigation State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: State authorities open an investigation into the permit authorization following widespread publicity of the case in the news media.
  • hasAgent content: State authorities
  • temporalMarker content: Most recent event, ongoing at the time of the case
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Investigate the circumstances of the permit issuance
  • textReferences content: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities
  • 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/175#",
    "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/175#Action_Investigation_Initiation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.650561+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "State authorities open an investigation into the permit authorization following widespread publicity of the case in the news media.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "State authorities",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Ongoing Investigation State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Investigate the circumstances of the permit issuance",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Regulatory oversight authority"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Most recent event, ongoing at the time of the case",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 9,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Investigation Initiation"
}
Extracted Events (2)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: The state engineering registration board informs Engineer A, based on the limited information provided, that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.

Temporal Marker: After Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and before he refuses to issue the permit instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • License Suspension Risk

Caused By Action: Action_Registration_Board_Consultation

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/175#Action_Registration_Board_Consultation
  • initiates: License Suspension Risk
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The state engineering registration board informs Engineer A, based on the limited information provided, that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
  • temporalMarker content: After Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and before he refuses to issue the permit
  • textReferences content: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
  • 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/175#",
    "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/175#Event_Board_Warning_Response",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.650675+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/175#Action_Registration_Board_Consultation",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "The state engineering registration board informs Engineer A, based on the limited information provided, that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "License Suspension Risk"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and before he refuses to issue the permit",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Board Warning Response"
}

Description: The case receives widespread publicity in the news media, which makes the circumstances known to appropriate public officials and, per the Board's discussion, renders further reporting by Engineer A to proper authorities a useless act.

Temporal Marker: After the department authorized the issuance of the permit interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Public Awareness
  • Authorities Awareness
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Public Awareness; Authorities Awareness
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The case receives widespread publicity in the news media, which makes the circumstances known to appropriate public officials and, per the Board's discussion, renders further reporting by Engineer A to proper authorities a useless act.
  • temporalMarker content: After the department authorized the issuance of the permit
  • textReferences content: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.; here, the case involves facts which have received coverage in the media; such officials are already aware of the situation and have begun an investigation
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/175#",
    "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/175#Event_Media_Publicity",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.650713+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.95",
  "proeth:description": "The case receives widespread publicity in the news media, which makes the circumstances known to appropriate public officials and, per the Board\u0027s discussion, renders further reporting by Engineer A to proper authorities a useless act.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Public Awareness",
    "Authorities Awareness"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After the department authorized the issuance of the permit",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.",
    "here, the case involves facts which have received coverage in the media",
    "such officials are already aware of the situation and have begun an investigation"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Media Publicity"
}
Causal Chains (8)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility. He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and "avoid any hang-ups" with respect to technical issues.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Superior's order directing Engineer A to prepare the permit
  • Engineer A's professional competence in environmental regulations
  • Existence of draft plans available for review
Sufficient Factors:
  • Order to draft the permit combined with Engineer A's professional review of the plans against the 1990 Clean Air Act standards
Counterfactual Test: Without the order to prepare the permit, Engineer A would not have been placed in the position to review the plans and form his professional judgment of their inadequacy
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A's superior
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Expedited Permit Order
    Superior orders Engineer A to draw up the construction permit expeditiously and avoid technical hang-ups
  2. Plan Review
    Engineer A examines the plans as drafted in the course of preparing the permit
  3. Technical Adequacy Assessment
    Engineer A concludes the plans are inadequate and that outside scrubbers are necessary to meet air pollution standards
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Expedited Permit Order
  • effect: Technical Adequacy Assessment
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A's superior
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility. He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and "avoid any hang-ups" with respect to technical issues.
  • necessaryFactors content: Superior's order directing Engineer A to prepare the permit; Engineer A's professional competence in environmental regulations; Existence of draft plans available for review
  • sufficientFactors content: Order to draft the permit combined with Engineer A's professional review of the plans against the 1990 Clean Air Act standards
  • counterfactual content: Without the order to prepare the permit, Engineer A would not have been placed in the position to review the plans and form his professional judgment of their inadequacy
  • agentKnowledge content: Superior believed the limestone/fluidized boiler process removing 90% of sulphur dioxide would meet regulatory requirements
  • interveningFactors content: Institutional pressure to move expeditiously; Superior's instruction to avoid technical 'hang-ups'
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Expedited Permit Order', 'proeth:description': 'Superior orders Engineer A to draw up the construction permit expeditiously and avoid technical hang-ups'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Plan Review', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A examines the plans as drafted in the course of preparing the permit'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Technical Adequacy Assessment', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A concludes the plans are inadequate and that outside scrubbers are necessary to meet air pollution standards'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/175#",
    "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/175#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.650775+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Superior believed the limestone/fluidized boiler process removing 90% of sulphur dioxide would meet regulatory requirements",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility. He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and \"avoid any hang-ups\" with respect to technical issues.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Superior orders Engineer A to draw up the construction permit expeditiously and avoid technical hang-ups",
      "proeth:element": "Expedited Permit Order",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A examines the plans as drafted in the course of preparing the permit",
      "proeth:element": "Plan Review",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A concludes the plans are inadequate and that outside scrubbers are necessary to meet air pollution standards",
      "proeth:element": "Technical Adequacy Assessment",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Expedited Permit Order",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the order to prepare the permit, Engineer A would not have been placed in the position to review the plans and form his professional judgment of their inadequacy",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Technical Adequacy Assessment",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Institutional pressure to move expeditiously",
    "Superior\u0027s instruction to avoid technical \u0027hang-ups\u0027"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Superior\u0027s order directing Engineer A to prepare the permit",
    "Engineer A\u0027s professional competence in environmental regulations",
    "Existence of draft plans available for review"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A\u0027s superior",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Order to draft the permit combined with Engineer A\u0027s professional review of the plans against the 1990 Clean Air Act standards"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's professional judgment that the plans were inadequate
  • Engineer A's concern about his professional licensure exposure
  • Conflict between the superior's directive and Engineer A's technical conclusion
Sufficient Factors:
  • Belief that issuing the permit would violate air pollution standards combined with pressure from the superior to proceed
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A concluded the plans were adequate, he would have had no reason to seek the registration board's guidance on license risk
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Technical Adequacy Assessment
    Engineer A forms professional judgment that plans are inadequate and permit issuance would violate air pollution standards
  2. Conflict Recognition
    Engineer A recognizes the conflict between his superior's directive and his professional and legal obligations
  3. Registration Board Consultation
    Engineer A proactively contacts the state engineering registration board for guidance
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Technical Adequacy Assessment
  • effect: Registration Board Consultation
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's professional judgment that the plans were inadequate; Engineer A's concern about his professional licensure exposure; Conflict between the superior's directive and Engineer A's technical conclusion
  • sufficientFactors content: Belief that issuing the permit would violate air pollution standards combined with pressure from the superior to proceed
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A concluded the plans were adequate, he would have had no reason to seek the registration board's guidance on license risk
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew the plans as drafted might violate the 1990 Clean Air Act and that his superior disagreed with his assessment
  • interveningFactors content: Superior's contrary technical opinion regarding the fluidized boiler process
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Technical Adequacy Assessment', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A forms professional judgment that plans are inadequate and permit issuance would violate air pollution standards'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Conflict Recognition', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A recognizes the conflict between his superior's directive and his professional and legal obligations"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Registration Board Consultation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A proactively contacts the state engineering registration board for guidance'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/175#",
    "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/175#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.650807+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew the plans as drafted might violate the 1990 Clean Air Act and that his superior disagreed with his assessment",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A forms professional judgment that plans are inadequate and permit issuance would violate air pollution standards",
      "proeth:element": "Technical Adequacy Assessment",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A recognizes the conflict between his superior\u0027s directive and his professional and legal obligations",
      "proeth:element": "Conflict Recognition",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A proactively contacts the state engineering registration board for guidance",
      "proeth:element": "Registration Board Consultation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Technical Adequacy Assessment",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A concluded the plans were adequate, he would have had no reason to seek the registration board\u0027s guidance on license risk",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Registration Board Consultation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Superior\u0027s contrary technical opinion regarding the fluidized boiler process"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s professional judgment that the plans were inadequate",
    "Engineer A\u0027s concern about his professional licensure exposure",
    "Conflict between the superior\u0027s directive and Engineer A\u0027s technical conclusion"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Belief that issuing the permit would violate air pollution standards combined with pressure from the superior to proceed"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's affirmative inquiry to the board
  • The board's authority over licensure discipline
  • The information Engineer A provided about the potential regulatory violation
Sufficient Factors:
  • Engineer A's inquiry describing a potential permit that violates environmental regulations was sufficient to prompt the board's warning
Counterfactual Test: Without Engineer A's consultation, the board would not have issued any warning; the warning is a direct response to his inquiry
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Registration Board Consultation
    Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board with facts about the permit situation
  2. Board Warning Response
    Board informs Engineer A that suspension or revocation of his license is possible if he prepares a permit violating environmental regulations
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Registration Board Consultation
  • effect: Board Warning Response
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's affirmative inquiry to the board; The board's authority over licensure discipline; The information Engineer A provided about the potential regulatory violation
  • sufficientFactors content: Engineer A's inquiry describing a potential permit that violates environmental regulations was sufficient to prompt the board's warning
  • counterfactual content: Without Engineer A's consultation, the board would not have issued any warning; the warning is a direct response to his inquiry
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew he was providing limited information and was seeking authoritative guidance on licensure risk
  • interveningFactors content: The board's response was based on limited information provided
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Registration Board Consultation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board with facts about the permit situation'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Board Warning Response', 'proeth:description': 'Board informs Engineer A that suspension or revocation of his license is possible if he prepares a permit violating environmental regulations'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/175#",
    "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/175#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.650832+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew he was providing limited information and was seeking authoritative guidance on licensure risk",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board with facts about the permit situation",
      "proeth:element": "Registration Board Consultation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board informs Engineer A that suspension or revocation of his license is possible if he prepares a permit violating environmental regulations",
      "proeth:element": "Board Warning Response",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Registration Board Consultation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer A\u0027s consultation, the board would not have issued any warning; the warning is a direct response to his inquiry",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Board Warning Response",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "The board\u0027s response was based on limited information provided"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s affirmative inquiry to the board",
    "The board\u0027s authority over licensure discipline",
    "The information Engineer A provided about the potential regulatory violation"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s inquiry describing a potential permit that violates environmental regulations was sufficient to prompt the board\u0027s warning"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations. Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Board warning about possible suspension or revocation of license
  • Engineer A's pre-existing professional judgment that the plans were inadequate
  • Engineer A's ethical obligation to hold paramount public health, safety and welfare
Sufficient Factors:
  • The combination of the licensure warning and Engineer A's technical conclusion that issuance would violate the 1990 Clean Air Act
Counterfactual Test: Engineer A's technical assessment alone may have led him to refuse, but the board's warning reinforced and confirmed his decision; refusal without the warning is possible but less certain
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Board Warning Response
    Board warns Engineer A of potential license suspension or revocation
  2. Risk and Duty Evaluation
    Engineer A weighs the licensure risk and his obligation to protect public health, safety and welfare
  3. Permit Issuance Refusal
    Engineer A refuses to issue the permit
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Board Warning Response
  • effect: Permit Issuance Refusal
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations. Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
  • necessaryFactors content: Board warning about possible suspension or revocation of license; Engineer A's pre-existing professional judgment that the plans were inadequate; Engineer A's ethical obligation to hold paramount public health, safety and welfare
  • sufficientFactors content: The combination of the licensure warning and Engineer A's technical conclusion that issuance would violate the 1990 Clean Air Act
  • counterfactual content: Engineer A's technical assessment alone may have led him to refuse, but the board's warning reinforced and confirmed his decision; refusal without the warning is possible but less certain
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew both that the plans were technically inadequate and that his license could be suspended or revoked if he prepared a violating permit
  • interveningFactors content: Superior's continued pressure to issue the permit expeditiously
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Board Warning Response', 'proeth:description': 'Board warns Engineer A of potential license suspension or revocation'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Risk and Duty Evaluation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A weighs the licensure risk and his obligation to protect public health, safety and welfare'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Permit Issuance Refusal', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A refuses to issue the permit'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/175#",
    "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/175#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.650856+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew both that the plans were technically inadequate and that his license could be suspended or revoked if he prepared a violating permit",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations. Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board warns Engineer A of potential license suspension or revocation",
      "proeth:element": "Board Warning Response",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A weighs the licensure risk and his obligation to protect public health, safety and welfare",
      "proeth:element": "Risk and Duty Evaluation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A refuses to issue the permit",
      "proeth:element": "Permit Issuance Refusal",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Board Warning Response",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Engineer A\u0027s technical assessment alone may have led him to refuse, but the board\u0027s warning reinforced and confirmed his decision; refusal without the warning is possible but less certain",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Permit Issuance Refusal",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Superior\u0027s continued pressure to issue the permit expeditiously"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Board warning about possible suspension or revocation of license",
    "Engineer A\u0027s pre-existing professional judgment that the plans were inadequate",
    "Engineer A\u0027s ethical obligation to hold paramount public health, safety and welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The combination of the licensure warning and Engineer A\u0027s technical conclusion that issuance would violate the 1990 Clean Air Act"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's decision to refuse the permit
  • Engineer A's documented technical findings on plan inadequacy
  • Organizational chain of command requiring justification to the superior
Sufficient Factors:
  • Refusal to comply with a direct order combined with Engineer A's professional duty to document and communicate the basis for refusal
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A issued the permit as ordered, there would have been no refusal to document and no findings submission would have been necessary in this form
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Permit Issuance Refusal
    Engineer A refuses to issue the construction permit
  2. Findings Submission
    Engineer A formally submits his findings on plan inadequacy to his superior
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Permit Issuance Refusal
  • effect: Findings Submission
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's decision to refuse the permit; Engineer A's documented technical findings on plan inadequacy; Organizational chain of command requiring justification to the superior
  • sufficientFactors content: Refusal to comply with a direct order combined with Engineer A's professional duty to document and communicate the basis for refusal
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A issued the permit as ordered, there would have been no refusal to document and no findings submission would have been necessary in this form
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew his refusal required professional justification and that his superior held a contrary technical view
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Permit Issuance Refusal', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A refuses to issue the construction permit'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Findings Submission', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A formally submits his findings on plan inadequacy to his superior'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/175#",
    "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/175#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.650876+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew his refusal required professional justification and that his superior held a contrary technical view",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A refuses to issue the construction permit",
      "proeth:element": "Permit Issuance Refusal",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A formally submits his findings on plan inadequacy to his superior",
      "proeth:element": "Findings Submission",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Permit Issuance Refusal",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A issued the permit as ordered, there would have been no refusal to document and no findings submission would have been necessary in this form",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Findings Submission",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s decision to refuse the permit",
    "Engineer A\u0027s documented technical findings on plan inadequacy",
    "Organizational chain of command requiring justification to the superior"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Refusal to comply with a direct order combined with Engineer A\u0027s professional duty to document and communicate the basis for refusal"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior. The department authorized the issuance of the permit.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's refusal and submission of findings, which forced the decision to a higher departmental level
  • The department's authority to authorize the permit independently of Engineer A
  • The superior's belief that the fluidized boiler process would meet regulatory requirements
Sufficient Factors:
  • The department's independent authority combined with its acceptance of the superior's technical position was sufficient to authorize the permit despite Engineer A's objections
Counterfactual Test: The department likely would have obtained an issued permit either way — via Engineer A's compliance or its own authorization — so the permit's issuance was overdetermined; however, Engineer A's refusal caused the authorization to occur over documented objection
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: The department (environmental protection division management)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Findings Submission
    Engineer A submits documented findings of plan inadequacy to his superior
  2. Departmental Decision
    The department reviews the situation with the refusal and findings on record
  3. Permit Authorization
    The department authorizes issuance of the permit despite Engineer A's documented objections
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Findings Submission
  • effect: Permit Authorization
  • responsibleAgent: The department (environmental protection division management)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior. The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's refusal and submission of findings, which forced the decision to a higher departmental level; The department's authority to authorize the permit independently of Engineer A; The superior's belief that the fluidized boiler process would meet regulatory requirements
  • sufficientFactors content: The department's independent authority combined with its acceptance of the superior's technical position was sufficient to authorize the permit despite Engineer A's objections
  • counterfactual content: The department likely would have obtained an issued permit either way — via Engineer A's compliance or its own authorization — so the permit's issuance was overdetermined; however, Engineer A's refusal caused the authorization to occur over documented objection
  • agentKnowledge content: The department had received Engineer A's documented findings that the permit would violate air pollution standards under the 1990 Clean Air Act
  • interveningFactors content: Superior's competing technical opinion about 90% sulphur dioxide removal; Institutional pressure to move expeditiously on the permit
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Findings Submission', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A submits documented findings of plan inadequacy to his superior'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Departmental Decision', 'proeth:description': 'The department reviews the situation with the refusal and findings on record'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Permit Authorization', 'proeth:description': "The department authorizes issuance of the permit despite Engineer A's documented objections"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/175#",
    "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/175#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.650895+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "The department had received Engineer A\u0027s documented findings that the permit would violate air pollution standards under the 1990 Clean Air Act",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior. The department authorized the issuance of the permit.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A submits documented findings of plan inadequacy to his superior",
      "proeth:element": "Findings Submission",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The department reviews the situation with the refusal and findings on record",
      "proeth:element": "Departmental Decision",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The department authorizes issuance of the permit despite Engineer A\u0027s documented objections",
      "proeth:element": "Permit Authorization",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Findings Submission",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "The department likely would have obtained an issued permit either way \u2014 via Engineer A\u0027s compliance or its own authorization \u2014 so the permit\u0027s issuance was overdetermined; however, Engineer A\u0027s refusal caused the authorization to occur over documented objection",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Permit Authorization",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Superior\u0027s competing technical opinion about 90% sulphur dioxide removal",
    "Institutional pressure to move expeditiously on the permit"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s refusal and submission of findings, which forced the decision to a higher departmental level",
    "The department\u0027s authority to authorize the permit independently of Engineer A",
    "The superior\u0027s belief that the fluidized boiler process would meet regulatory requirements"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "The department (environmental protection division management)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The department\u0027s independent authority combined with its acceptance of the superior\u0027s technical position was sufficient to authorize the permit despite Engineer A\u0027s objections"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: The department authorized the issuance of the permit. The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • The department's authorization of a contested permit
  • The public significance of air pollution standards under the 1990 Clean Air Act
  • The existence of a documented internal dispute (Engineer A's refusal)
Sufficient Factors:
  • A government department overriding its own engineer's documented public-health objections was a newsworthy controversy sufficient to attract media coverage
Counterfactual Test: Had the department declined to authorize the permit or modified the plans, there likely would have been no controversy to publicize
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: The department (environmental protection division management)
Type: indirect
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Permit Authorization
    Department authorizes the permit over Engineer A's refusal and findings
  2. Controversy Emergence
    The dispute over the potentially violating permit becomes publicly known
  3. Media Publicity
    The case receives widespread publicity in the news media
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Permit Authorization
  • effect: Media Publicity
  • responsibleAgent: The department (environmental protection division management)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: The department authorized the issuance of the permit. The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.
  • necessaryFactors content: The department's authorization of a contested permit; The public significance of air pollution standards under the 1990 Clean Air Act; The existence of a documented internal dispute (Engineer A's refusal)
  • sufficientFactors content: A government department overriding its own engineer's documented public-health objections was a newsworthy controversy sufficient to attract media coverage
  • counterfactual content: Had the department declined to authorize the permit or modified the plans, there likely would have been no controversy to publicize
  • agentKnowledge content: The department knew it was authorizing a permit over a licensed engineer's documented objection that it violated air pollution standards
  • interveningFactors content: News media's independent decision to cover the case
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Permit Authorization', 'proeth:description': "Department authorizes the permit over Engineer A's refusal and findings"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Controversy Emergence', 'proeth:description': 'The dispute over the potentially violating permit becomes publicly known'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Media Publicity', 'proeth:description': 'The case receives widespread publicity in the news media'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: indirect
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/175#",
    "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/175#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.650914+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "The department knew it was authorizing a permit over a licensed engineer\u0027s documented objection that it violated air pollution standards",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The department authorized the issuance of the permit. The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Department authorizes the permit over Engineer A\u0027s refusal and findings",
      "proeth:element": "Permit Authorization",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The dispute over the potentially violating permit becomes publicly known",
      "proeth:element": "Controversy Emergence",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The case receives widespread publicity in the news media",
      "proeth:element": "Media Publicity",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Permit Authorization",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the department declined to authorize the permit or modified the plans, there likely would have been no controversy to publicize",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Media Publicity",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "News media\u0027s independent decision to cover the case"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "The department\u0027s authorization of a contested permit",
    "The public significance of air pollution standards under the 1990 Clean Air Act",
    "The existence of a documented internal dispute (Engineer A\u0027s refusal)"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "The department (environmental protection division management)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "A government department overriding its own engineer\u0027s documented public-health objections was a newsworthy controversy sufficient to attract media coverage"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: In view of this fact, we do not believe it is incumbent upon Engineer A to bring this issue to the attention of the "proper authorities". As we see it, such officials are already aware of the situation and have begun an investigation.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Widespread media publicity making the circumstances known to appropriate public officials
  • State authorities' jurisdiction over environmental permit violations
  • An underlying permit authorization potentially violating the 1990 Clean Air Act
Sufficient Factors:
  • Media coverage informing state officials of a potential regulatory violation was sufficient to trigger an official investigation
Counterfactual Test: Without media publicity, state authorities may not have learned of the situation, and Engineer A would have been obligated to report to proper authorities himself (as in BER Case 88-6); the investigation likely would not have begun as it did
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: State authorities
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Media Publicity
    The case receives widespread publicity in the news media
  2. Official Awareness
    Appropriate public officials become aware of the permit controversy
  3. Investigation Initiation
    State authorities open an investigation into the permit authorization
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Media Publicity
  • effect: Investigation Initiation
  • responsibleAgent: State authorities
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: In view of this fact, we do not believe it is incumbent upon Engineer A to bring this issue to the attention of the "proper authorities". As we see it, such officials are already aware of the situation and have begun an investigation.
  • necessaryFactors content: Widespread media publicity making the circumstances known to appropriate public officials; State authorities' jurisdiction over environmental permit violations; An underlying permit authorization potentially violating the 1990 Clean Air Act
  • sufficientFactors content: Media coverage informing state officials of a potential regulatory violation was sufficient to trigger an official investigation
  • counterfactual content: Without media publicity, state authorities may not have learned of the situation, and Engineer A would have been obligated to report to proper authorities himself (as in BER Case 88-6); the investigation likely would not have begun as it did
  • agentKnowledge content: State officials became aware of the disputed permit authorization through widespread news media coverage
  • interveningFactors content: News media's independent reporting decisions; Public attention generated by the coverage
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Media Publicity', 'proeth:description': 'The case receives widespread publicity in the news media'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Official Awareness', 'proeth:description': 'Appropriate public officials become aware of the permit controversy'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Investigation Initiation', 'proeth:description': 'State authorities open an investigation into the permit authorization'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/175#",
    "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/175#CausalChain_8",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T04:10:29.650932+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "State officials became aware of the disputed permit authorization through widespread news media coverage",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "In view of this fact, we do not believe it is incumbent upon Engineer A to bring this issue to the attention of the \"proper authorities\". As we see it, such officials are already aware of the situation and have begun an investigation.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "The case receives widespread publicity in the news media",
      "proeth:element": "Media Publicity",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Appropriate public officials become aware of the permit controversy",
      "proeth:element": "Official Awareness",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "State authorities open an investigation into the permit authorization",
      "proeth:element": "Investigation Initiation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Media Publicity",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without media publicity, state authorities may not have learned of the situation, and Engineer A would have been obligated to report to proper authorities himself (as in BER Case 88-6); the investigation likely would not have begun as it did",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Investigation Initiation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "News media\u0027s independent reporting decisions",
    "Public attention generated by the coverage"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Widespread media publicity making the circumstances known to appropriate public officials",
    "State authorities\u0027 jurisdiction over environmental permit violations",
    "An underlying permit authorization potentially violating the 1990 Clean Air Act"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "State authorities",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Media coverage informing state officials of a potential regulatory violation was sufficient to trigger an official investigation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (9)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
Engineer A's inquiry to the state registration board during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		permit preparation dispute with superior time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit co... [more]
superior's order to prepare the permit expeditiously before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's conclusion that plans are inadequate time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A ... is ordered to draw up a construction permit ... Engineer A believes the plans as draf... [more]
Engineer A's conclusion that plans violate the 1990 Clean Air Act before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A contacting the state engineering registration board time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate ... Engineer A contacts the state engineerin... [more]
registration board's warning of possible license suspension/revocation before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's refusal to issue the permit time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		is informed ... that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility ... Engin... [more]
Engineer A's refusal and submission of findings to superior before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		department's authorization of the permit time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior. The department au... [more]
department's authorization of the permit before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		widespread media publicity time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		The department authorized the issuance of the permit. The case had received widespread publicity in ... [more]
widespread media publicity before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		state authorities' investigation time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by ... [more]
state authorities' investigation overlaps
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2 		Board of Ethical Review's discussion/analysis time:intervalOverlaps
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalOverlaps 		such officials are already aware of the situation and have begun an investigation ... is currently b... [more]
prior BER precedent decisions (65-12, 82-5, 88-6) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		current case analysis time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		The Board of Ethical Review has examined this issue over the years in differing contexts ... Turning... [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