This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-25 14:28; 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 181: Peer Review - Confidentiality Agreements

28 entities 6 actions 3 events 7 causal chains 11 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 9 sequenced markers
Confidentiality Agreement Signing At the time of original selection as peer reviewer, before any review visits
Collegial Issue Discussion Shortly after discovery of the potential violations, before any escalation
Peer Reviewer Selection At the start of the case, when Engineer A joins the peer review program
Peer Review Conduct During the peer review visit to Engineer B's firm
Design Work Execution On recent design projects, prior to the peer review visit
Risk Assessment Immediately following the discovery of potential violations
Authority Cooperation Contingent step following failure of Engineer B to take corrective action
Safety Violation Discovery During the peer review visit to Engineer B's firm, following review of the technical documentation
Corrective Action Failure Hypothetical future, after Engineer A notifies Engineer B of the safety concerns
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 11 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
signing of confidentiality agreement time:intervalEquals selection as peer reviewer
signing of confidentiality agreement time:intervalBefore peer review visit to Engineer B's firm
completion of Engineer B's recent design projects time:intervalBefore peer review of technical documentation
review of technical documentation time:intervalDuring peer review visit to Engineer B's firm
review of technical documentation time:intervalBefore discovery of potential safety code violations
disclosure of firm information to peer reviewer time:intervalDuring peer review process
discovery of potential safety code violations time:intervalBefore discussion with Engineer B seeking clarification and resolution
determination of imminent risk of harm time:intervalMeets notification of Engineer B
Engineer B's failure to take corrective action time:intervalBefore Engineer A's cooperation with proper authorities
discussion with Engineer B (unresolved) time:intervalBefore informing Engineer B of the alternative to cooperate with authorities
development of peer review programs by professions time:intervalBefore the present case (Engineer A's peer review)
Extracted Actions (6)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Upon original selection as a peer reviewer, Engineer A signs a confidentiality agreement promising not to disclose confidential information about peer-reviewed firms.

Temporal Marker: At the time of original selection as peer reviewer, before any review visits instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Confidentiality Agreement in Effect

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Qualify to serve as a peer reviewer and assure reviewed firms that their information will remain confidential

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Binding himself to nondisclosure that could later conflict with other professional duties
Guided By Principles:
  • Confidentiality
Required Capabilities:
Understanding of peer review confidentiality requirements
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Confidentiality
  • requiresCapability: Understanding of peer review confidentiality requirements
  • initiates: Confidentiality Agreement in Effect
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Upon original selection as a peer reviewer, Engineer A signs a confidentiality agreement promising not to disclose confidential information about peer-reviewed firms.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: At the time of original selection as peer reviewer, before any review visits
  • eventRoleContext content: Peer Reviewer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Qualify to serve as a peer reviewer and assure reviewed firms that their information will remain confidential
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Binding himself to nondisclosure that could later conflict with other professional duties
  • textReferences content: When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#",
    "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/181#Action_Confidentiality_Agreement_Signing",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.886777+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Upon original selection as a peer reviewer, Engineer A signs a confidentiality agreement promising not to disclose confidential information about peer-reviewed firms.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Peer Reviewer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Binding himself to nondisclosure that could later conflict with other professional duties"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Confidentiality"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Confidentiality Agreement in Effect"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Qualify to serve as a peer reviewer and assure reviewed firms that their information will remain confidential",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Understanding of peer review confidentiality requirements"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the time of original selection as peer reviewer, before any review visits",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a \u201cconfidentiality agreement\u201d whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Confidentiality Agreement Signing"
}

Description: Engineer B's firm performed design work on a series of recent projects that may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.

Temporal Marker: On recent design projects, prior to the peer review visit interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Potential Safety Code Violation
  • Potential Endangerment of Public Health and Safety

Mental State: deliberate professional design work, with no stated awareness of code violations

Intended Outcome: Complete the firm's design projects

Obligation Engagement:
Violates (1)
  • Duty to Protect Public Health and Safety
Required Capabilities:
Engineering design Safety code compliance
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Duty to Protect Public Health and Safety
  • requiresCapability: Engineering design; Safety code compliance
  • initiates: Potential Safety Code Violation; Potential Endangerment of Public Health and Safety
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer B's firm performed design work on a series of recent projects that may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer B
  • temporalMarker content: On recent design projects, prior to the peer review visit
  • eventRoleContext content: Principal of Reviewed Firm
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate professional design work, with no stated awareness of code violations
  • intendedOutcome content: Complete the firm's design projects
  • textReferences content: Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#",
    "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/181#Action_Design_Work_Execution",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.887417+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B\u0027s firm performed design work on a series of recent projects that may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Principal of Reviewed Firm",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate professional design work, with no stated awareness of code violations",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Potential Safety Code Violation",
    "Potential Endangerment of Public Health and Safety"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Complete the firm\u0027s design projects",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Engineering design",
    "Safety code compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "On recent design projects, prior to the peer review visit",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A discovers that Engineer B\u2019s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Duty to Protect Public Health and Safety"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Design Work Execution"
}

Description: Engineer A conducts a peer review visit to Engineer B's firm and reviews the technical documentation of a series of recent design projects.

Temporal Marker: During the peer review visit to Engineer B's firm interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Knowledge of Potential Safety Code Violations

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Perform a thorough evaluation of Engineer B's firm to help improve its professional practice

Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Confidentiality Obligation
Guided By Principles:
  • Confidentiality
Required Capabilities:
Technical documentation review Professional practice evaluation
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Confidentiality
  • requiresCapability: Technical documentation review; Professional practice evaluation
  • initiates: Knowledge of Potential Safety Code Violations
  • raisesObligation: Confidentiality Obligation
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A conducts a peer review visit to Engineer B's firm and reviews the technical documentation of a series of recent design projects.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: During the peer review visit to Engineer B's firm
  • eventRoleContext content: Peer Reviewer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Perform a thorough evaluation of Engineer B's firm to help improve its professional practice
  • textReferences content: As part of a peer review visit, Engineer A visits Engineer B’s firm.; Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#",
    "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/181#Action_Peer_Review_Conduct",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.887340+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A conducts a peer review visit to Engineer B\u0027s firm and reviews the technical documentation of a series of recent design projects.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Peer Reviewer",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Confidentiality"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Knowledge of Potential Safety Code Violations"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Perform a thorough evaluation of Engineer B\u0027s firm to help improve its professional practice",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Confidentiality Obligation"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Technical documentation review",
    "Professional practice evaluation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the peer review visit to Engineer B\u0027s firm",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "As part of a peer review visit, Engineer A visits Engineer B\u2019s firm.",
    "Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B\u2019s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B\u2019s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Peer Review Conduct"
}

Description: The Board prescribes that Engineer A must exercise judgment and discretion to determine whether there is an imminent risk of harm to the public health and safety, such as loss of life or serious risk of injury to persons or property.

Temporal Marker: Immediately following the discovery of potential violations instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Determination of Risk Level

Mental State: deliberate exercise of professional judgment and discretion

Intended Outcome: Determine the appropriate course of action based on the degree of risk to the public

Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Duty to Protect Public Health and Safety
Guided By Principles:
  • Paramount Duty to Public Health and Safety
Required Capabilities:
Engineering judgment Risk evaluation
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Paramount Duty to Public Health and Safety
  • requiresCapability: Engineering judgment; Risk evaluation
  • initiates: Determination of Risk Level
  • raisesObligation: Duty to Protect Public Health and Safety
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The Board prescribes that Engineer A must exercise judgment and discretion to determine whether there is an imminent risk of harm to the public health and safety, such as loss of life or serious risk of injury to persons or property.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Immediately following the discovery of potential violations
  • eventRoleContext content: Peer Reviewer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate exercise of professional judgment and discretion
  • intendedOutcome content: Determine the appropriate course of action based on the degree of risk to the public
  • textReferences content: Engineer A will have to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion concerning this matter depending upon all of the facts and circumstances.; If Engineer A determines that there is an imminent risk of harm to the public health and safety such as loss of life, serious risk of injury to persons or property
  • 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/181#",
    "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/181#Action_Risk_Assessment",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.887450+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The Board prescribes that Engineer A must exercise judgment and discretion to determine whether there is an imminent risk of harm to the public health and safety, such as loss of life or serious risk of injury to persons or property.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Peer Reviewer",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Paramount Duty to Public Health and Safety"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate exercise of professional judgment and discretion",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Determination of Risk Level"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Determine the appropriate course of action based on the degree of risk to the public",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Duty to Protect Public Health and Safety"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Engineering judgment",
    "Risk evaluation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Immediately following the discovery of potential violations",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A will have to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion concerning this matter depending upon all of the facts and circumstances.",
    "If Engineer A determines that there is an imminent risk of harm to the public health and safety such as loss of life, serious risk of injury to persons or property"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Risk Assessment"
}

Description: The Board prescribes that Engineer A should expeditiously discuss the potential safety code violations with Engineer B, seeking clarification and early resolution, and if imminent risk exists must immediately notify Engineer B.

Temporal Marker: Shortly after discovery of the potential violations, before any escalation instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Engineer B Notified of Potential Violations

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Seek clarification and early resolution of the safety issues while preserving the collegial peer review relationship

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Possible failure of Engineer B to take corrective action, requiring escalation
Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Duty to Protect Public Health and Safety
Guided By Principles:
  • Paramount Duty to Public Health and Safety
  • Confidentiality
Required Capabilities:
Professional communication Engineering judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Paramount Duty to Public Health and Safety; Confidentiality
  • requiresCapability: Professional communication; Engineering judgment
  • initiates: Engineer B Notified of Potential Violations
  • raisesObligation: Duty to Protect Public Health and Safety
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The Board prescribes that Engineer A should expeditiously discuss the potential safety code violations with Engineer B, seeking clarification and early resolution, and if imminent risk exists must immediately notify Engineer B.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Shortly after discovery of the potential violations, before any escalation
  • eventRoleContext content: Peer Reviewer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Seek clarification and early resolution of the safety issues while preserving the collegial peer review relationship
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Possible failure of Engineer B to take corrective action, requiring escalation
  • textReferences content: a more appropriate action would be for Engineer A to expeditiously discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of this issue; Engineer A must immediately take appropriate steps by notifying Engineer B
  • 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/181#",
    "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/181#Action_Collegial_Issue_Discussion",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.887480+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The Board prescribes that Engineer A should expeditiously discuss the potential safety code violations with Engineer B, seeking clarification and early resolution, and if imminent risk exists must immediately notify Engineer B.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Peer Reviewer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Possible failure of Engineer B to take corrective action, requiring escalation"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Paramount Duty to Public Health and Safety",
    "Confidentiality"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Engineer B Notified of Potential Violations"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Seek clarification and early resolution of the safety issues while preserving the collegial peer review relationship",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Duty to Protect Public Health and Safety"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional communication",
    "Engineering judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Shortly after discovery of the potential violations, before any escalation",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "a more appropriate action would be for Engineer A to expeditiously discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of this issue",
    "Engineer A must immediately take appropriate steps by notifying Engineer B"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Collegial Issue Discussion"
}

Description: The Board prescribes a conditional step: if Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions or the issue is unresolved, Engineer A must inform Engineer B that his only alternative is to cooperate with proper authorities, and Engineer A may then cooperate with proper authorities in furnishing information or assistance as required.

Temporal Marker: Contingent step following failure of Engineer B to take corrective action instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Authorities Informed of Alleged Violations
Terminates (1)
  • Confidentiality Agreement in Effect

Mental State: deliberate, conditional on Engineer B's failure to correct

Intended Outcome: Protect public health and safety by bringing the alleged violations to the proper authorities

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Disclosure of information otherwise covered by the confidentiality agreement
  • Potential damage to trust in the peer review process
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (2)
  • Duty to Cooperate with Proper Authorities
  • Duty to Protect Public Health and Safety
Violates (1)
  • Confidentiality Obligation
Guided By Principles:
  • Paramount Duty to Public Health and Safety
Required Capabilities:
Knowledge of reporting procedures Engineering judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Duty to Cooperate with Proper Authorities; Duty to Protect Public Health and Safety
  • violatesObligation: Confidentiality Obligation
  • guidedByPrinciple: Paramount Duty to Public Health and Safety
  • requiresCapability: Knowledge of reporting procedures; Engineering judgment
  • initiates: Authorities Informed of Alleged Violations
  • terminates: Confidentiality Agreement in Effect
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The Board prescribes a conditional step: if Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions or the issue is unresolved, Engineer A must inform Engineer B that his only alternative is to cooperate with proper authorities, and Engineer A may then cooperate with proper authorities in furnishing information or assistance as required.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Contingent step following failure of Engineer B to take corrective action
  • eventRoleContext content: Peer Reviewer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate, conditional on Engineer B's failure to correct
  • intendedOutcome content: Protect public health and safety by bringing the alleged violations to the proper authorities
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Disclosure of information otherwise covered by the confidentiality agreement; Potential damage to trust in the peer review process
  • textReferences content: In the event that Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions, Engineer A may cooperate with proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.; If Engineer A and Engineer B are unable to resolve the issue, Engineer A must inform Engineer B that as a professional engineer, his only alternative is to cooperate with the proper authorities as indicated above.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 9
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#",
    "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/181#Action_Authority_Cooperation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.887509+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The Board prescribes a conditional step: if Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions or the issue is unresolved, Engineer A must inform Engineer B that his only alternative is to cooperate with proper authorities, and Engineer A may then cooperate with proper authorities in furnishing information or assistance as required.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Peer Reviewer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Disclosure of information otherwise covered by the confidentiality agreement",
    "Potential damage to trust in the peer review process"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Duty to Cooperate with Proper Authorities",
    "Duty to Protect Public Health and Safety"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Paramount Duty to Public Health and Safety"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate, conditional on Engineer B\u0027s failure to correct",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Authorities Informed of Alleged Violations"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Protect public health and safety by bringing the alleged violations to the proper authorities",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Knowledge of reporting procedures",
    "Engineering judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Contingent step following failure of Engineer B to take corrective action",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 9,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Confidentiality Agreement in Effect"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "In the event that Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions, Engineer A may cooperate with proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.",
    "If Engineer A and Engineer B are unable to resolve the issue, Engineer A must inform Engineer B that as a professional engineer, his only alternative is to cooperate with the proper authorities as indicated above."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Confidentiality Obligation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Authority Cooperation"
}
Extracted Events (3)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Engineer A is selected by the organized peer review program to serve as a peer reviewer, which triggers the request to sign the confidentiality agreement.

Temporal Marker: At the start of the case, when Engineer A joins the peer review program instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Peer Reviewer Status
  • Confidentiality Agreement Pending
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Peer Reviewer Status; Confidentiality Agreement Pending
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A is selected by the organized peer review program to serve as a peer reviewer, which triggers the request to sign the confidentiality agreement.
  • temporalMarker content: At the start of the case, when Engineer A joins the peer review program
  • textReferences content: When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms.
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#",
    "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/181#Event_Peer_Reviewer_Selection",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.887596+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A is selected by the organized peer review program to serve as a peer reviewer, which triggers the request to sign the confidentiality agreement.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Peer Reviewer Status",
    "Confidentiality Agreement Pending"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the start of the case, when Engineer A joins the peer review program",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a \u201cconfidentiality agreement\u201d whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Peer Reviewer Selection"
}

Description: During the peer review of technical documentation from Engineer B's recent design projects, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare. This discovery creates the conflict between the confidentiality agreement and the duty to protect the public.

Temporal Marker: During the peer review visit to Engineer B's firm, following review of the technical documentation instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (3)
  • Potential Safety Code Violation
  • Public Health Endangerment Risk
  • Confidentiality Safety Conflict

Caused By Action: Action_Peer_Review_Conduct

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#Action_Peer_Review_Conduct
  • initiates: Potential Safety Code Violation; Public Health Endangerment Risk; Confidentiality Safety Conflict
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: During the peer review of technical documentation from Engineer B's recent design projects, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare. This discovery creates the conflict between the confidentiality agreement and the duty to protect the public.
  • temporalMarker content: During the peer review visit to Engineer B's firm, following review of the technical documentation
  • textReferences content: Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • confidence assessment: 0.97
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#",
    "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/181#Event_Safety_Violation_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.888153+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#Action_Peer_Review_Conduct",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.97",
  "proeth:description": "During the peer review of technical documentation from Engineer B\u0027s recent design projects, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B\u0027s work may violate state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare. This discovery creates the conflict between the confidentiality agreement and the duty to protect the public.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Potential Safety Code Violation",
    "Public Health Endangerment Risk",
    "Confidentiality Safety Conflict"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the peer review visit to Engineer B\u0027s firm, following review of the technical documentation",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A discovers that Engineer B\u2019s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Safety Violation Discovery"
}

Description: A hypothetical conditional occurrence contemplated by the Board, in which Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions after being notified by Engineer A, leaving the safety issue unresolved and permitting Engineer A to cooperate with proper authorities.

Temporal Marker: Hypothetical future, after Engineer A notifies Engineer B of the safety concerns interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Unresolved Safety Violation
Terminates (1)
  • Collegial Resolution Prospect

Caused By Action: Action_Design_Work_Execution

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#Action_Design_Work_Execution
  • initiates: Unresolved Safety Violation
  • terminates: Collegial Resolution Prospect
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: A hypothetical conditional occurrence contemplated by the Board, in which Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions after being notified by Engineer A, leaving the safety issue unresolved and permitting Engineer A to cooperate with proper authorities.
  • temporalMarker content: Hypothetical future, after Engineer A notifies Engineer B of the safety concerns
  • textReferences content: In the event that Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions, Engineer A may cooperate with proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#",
    "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/181#Event_Corrective_Action_Failure",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.888201+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#Action_Design_Work_Execution",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.8",
  "proeth:description": "A hypothetical conditional occurrence contemplated by the Board, in which Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions after being notified by Engineer A, leaving the safety issue unresolved and permitting Engineer A to cooperate with proper authorities.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Unresolved Safety Violation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Hypothetical future, after Engineer A notifies Engineer B of the safety concerns",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Collegial Resolution Prospect"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "In the event that Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions, Engineer A may cooperate with proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Corrective Action Failure"
}
Causal Chains (7)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Existence of an organized peer review program requiring confidentiality
  • Engineer A's selection as a peer reviewer
  • Program policy that reviewers must sign a confidentiality agreement
Sufficient Factors:
  • Selection into the program combined with the program's mandatory confidentiality policy and Engineer A's willingness to participate
Counterfactual Test: Without being selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A would never have been asked to sign, and would not have signed, the confidentiality agreement
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (with the peer review program as requesting party)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Peer Reviewer Selection
    Engineer A is selected by the organized peer review program to serve as a peer reviewer
  2. Confidentiality Request
    Program asks Engineer A to sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition of serving
  3. Confidentiality Agreement Signing
    Engineer A signs, agreeing not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Peer Reviewer Selection
  • effect: Confidentiality Agreement Signing
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (with the peer review program as requesting party)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms.
  • necessaryFactors content: Existence of an organized peer review program requiring confidentiality; Engineer A's selection as a peer reviewer; Program policy that reviewers must sign a confidentiality agreement
  • sufficientFactors content: Selection into the program combined with the program's mandatory confidentiality policy and Engineer A's willingness to participate
  • counterfactual content: Without being selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A would never have been asked to sign, and would not have signed, the confidentiality agreement
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew the agreement bound him not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms
  • interveningFactors content: Program policy mandating confidentiality agreements
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Peer Reviewer Selection', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A is selected by the organized peer review program to serve as a peer reviewer'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Confidentiality Request', 'proeth:description': 'Program asks Engineer A to sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition of serving'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Confidentiality Agreement Signing', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A signs, agreeing not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#",
    "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/181#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.888408+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew the agreement bound him not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a \u201cconfidentiality agreement\u201d whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A is selected by the organized peer review program to serve as a peer reviewer",
      "proeth:element": "Peer Reviewer Selection",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Program asks Engineer A to sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition of serving",
      "proeth:element": "Confidentiality Request",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A signs, agreeing not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms",
      "proeth:element": "Confidentiality Agreement Signing",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Peer Reviewer Selection",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without being selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A would never have been asked to sign, and would not have signed, the confidentiality agreement",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Confidentiality Agreement Signing",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Program policy mandating confidentiality agreements"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Existence of an organized peer review program requiring confidentiality",
    "Engineer A\u0027s selection as a peer reviewer",
    "Program policy that reviewers must sign a confidentiality agreement"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (with the peer review program as requesting party)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Selection into the program combined with the program\u0027s mandatory confidentiality policy and Engineer A\u0027s willingness to participate"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: As part of a peer review visit, Engineer A visits Engineer B’s firm.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's selection as a peer reviewer
  • Assignment of Engineer B's firm for review
  • Engineer B's firm's voluntary participation in the peer review program
Sufficient Factors:
  • Selection as peer reviewer combined with the program scheduling a visit to Engineer B's firm
Counterfactual Test: Without selection as a peer reviewer, Engineer A would have had no occasion or authorization to review Engineer B's firm's technical documentation
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Peer Reviewer Selection
    Engineer A is selected to serve as a peer reviewer in the organized program
  2. Confidentiality Agreement Signing
    Engineer A signs the agreement enabling participation in reviews
  3. Peer Review Conduct
    Engineer A visits Engineer B's firm and reviews technical documentation from recent design projects
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Peer Reviewer Selection
  • effect: Peer Review Conduct
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: As part of a peer review visit, Engineer A visits Engineer B’s firm.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's selection as a peer reviewer; Assignment of Engineer B's firm for review; Engineer B's firm's voluntary participation in the peer review program
  • sufficientFactors content: Selection as peer reviewer combined with the program scheduling a visit to Engineer B's firm
  • counterfactual content: Without selection as a peer reviewer, Engineer A would have had no occasion or authorization to review Engineer B's firm's technical documentation
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew the purpose of the visit was to evaluate and improve Engineer B's professional practice under confidentiality
  • interveningFactors content: Voluntary participation of Engineer B's firm in the program
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Peer Reviewer Selection', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A is selected to serve as a peer reviewer in the organized program'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Confidentiality Agreement Signing', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A signs the agreement enabling participation in reviews'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Peer Review Conduct', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A visits Engineer B's firm and reviews technical documentation from recent design projects"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#",
    "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/181#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.888448+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew the purpose of the visit was to evaluate and improve Engineer B\u0027s professional practice under confidentiality",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "As part of a peer review visit, Engineer A visits Engineer B\u2019s firm.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A is selected to serve as a peer reviewer in the organized program",
      "proeth:element": "Peer Reviewer Selection",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A signs the agreement enabling participation in reviews",
      "proeth:element": "Confidentiality Agreement Signing",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A visits Engineer B\u0027s firm and reviews technical documentation from recent design projects",
      "proeth:element": "Peer Review Conduct",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Peer Reviewer Selection",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without selection as a peer reviewer, Engineer A would have had no occasion or authorization to review Engineer B\u0027s firm\u0027s technical documentation",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Peer Review Conduct",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Voluntary participation of Engineer B\u0027s firm in the program"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s selection as a peer reviewer",
    "Assignment of Engineer B\u0027s firm for review",
    "Engineer B\u0027s firm\u0027s voluntary participation in the peer review program"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Selection as peer reviewer combined with the program scheduling a visit to Engineer B\u0027s firm"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer B's firm performed design work potentially violating state and local safety codes
  • Technical documentation of that work was made available for review
  • A competent reviewer examined the documentation
Sufficient Factors:
  • Existence of potentially code-violating design work combined with Engineer A's thorough review of the documentation
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer B's design work complied with safety code requirements, there would have been no violation to discover
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Design Work Execution
    Engineer B's firm performs design work on a series of recent projects that may violate safety codes
  2. Peer Review Conduct
    Engineer A visits Engineer B's firm and reviews the technical documentation
  3. Safety Violation Discovery
    Engineer A discovers that Engineer B's work may violate safety codes and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Design Work Execution
  • effect: Safety Violation Discovery
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer B's firm performed design work potentially violating state and local safety codes; Technical documentation of that work was made available for review; A competent reviewer examined the documentation
  • sufficientFactors content: Existence of potentially code-violating design work combined with Engineer A's thorough review of the documentation
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer B's design work complied with safety code requirements, there would have been no violation to discover
  • agentKnowledge content: As a licensed professional, Engineer B was charged with knowledge of applicable state and local safety code requirements
  • interveningFactors content: Peer review program's access to firm documentation
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Design Work Execution', 'proeth:description': "Engineer B's firm performs design work on a series of recent projects that may violate safety codes"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Peer Review Conduct', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A visits Engineer B's firm and reviews the technical documentation"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Safety Violation Discovery', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A discovers that Engineer B's work may violate safety codes and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#",
    "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/181#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.888473+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "As a licensed professional, Engineer B was charged with knowledge of applicable state and local safety code requirements",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B\u2019s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B\u2019s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B\u0027s firm performs design work on a series of recent projects that may violate safety codes",
      "proeth:element": "Design Work Execution",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A visits Engineer B\u0027s firm and reviews the technical documentation",
      "proeth:element": "Peer Review Conduct",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A discovers that Engineer B\u0027s work may violate safety codes and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare",
      "proeth:element": "Safety Violation Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Design Work Execution",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer B\u0027s design work complied with safety code requirements, there would have been no violation to discover",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Safety Violation Discovery",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Peer review program\u0027s access to firm documentation"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s firm performed design work potentially violating state and local safety codes",
    "Technical documentation of that work was made available for review",
    "A competent reviewer examined the documentation"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Existence of potentially code-violating design work combined with Engineer A\u0027s thorough review of the documentation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's access to and review of the technical documentation
  • Engineer A's professional competence to recognize code violations
  • Underlying deficient design work by Engineer B's firm
Sufficient Factors:
  • Thorough review of the documentation by a qualified peer reviewer combined with the presence of code-violating work in that documentation
Counterfactual Test: Without the peer review visit and documentation review, the potential violations would have remained undiscovered by Engineer A
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (for the discovery); Engineer B (for the underlying condition discovered)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Peer Review Conduct
    Engineer A conducts the peer review visit and examines project documentation
  2. Safety Violation Discovery
    Engineer A discovers possible violations of state and local safety code requirements endangering the public
  3. Ethical Dilemma Arises
    Confidentiality obligation (III.4) conflicts with duty to cooperate with authorities (II.1.e)
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Peer Review Conduct
  • effect: Safety Violation Discovery
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (for the discovery); Engineer B (for the underlying condition discovered)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B’s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's access to and review of the technical documentation; Engineer A's professional competence to recognize code violations; Underlying deficient design work by Engineer B's firm
  • sufficientFactors content: Thorough review of the documentation by a qualified peer reviewer combined with the presence of code-violating work in that documentation
  • counterfactual content: Without the peer review visit and documentation review, the potential violations would have remained undiscovered by Engineer A
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew he was bound by a confidentiality agreement while performing the review
  • interveningFactors content: Confidentiality obligations of the peer review program; Firm's disclosure of pertinent detailed information
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Peer Review Conduct', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A conducts the peer review visit and examines project documentation'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Safety Violation Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A discovers possible violations of state and local safety code requirements endangering the public'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Ethical Dilemma Arises', 'proeth:description': 'Confidentiality obligation (III.4) conflicts with duty to cooperate with authorities (II.1.e)'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#",
    "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/181#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.888497+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew he was bound by a confidentiality agreement while performing the review",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B\u2019s firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B\u2019s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A conducts the peer review visit and examines project documentation",
      "proeth:element": "Peer Review Conduct",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A discovers possible violations of state and local safety code requirements endangering the public",
      "proeth:element": "Safety Violation Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Confidentiality obligation (III.4) conflicts with duty to cooperate with authorities (II.1.e)",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Dilemma Arises",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Peer Review Conduct",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the peer review visit and documentation review, the potential violations would have remained undiscovered by Engineer A",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Safety Violation Discovery",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Confidentiality obligations of the peer review program",
    "Firm\u0027s disclosure of pertinent detailed information"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s access to and review of the technical documentation",
    "Engineer A\u0027s professional competence to recognize code violations",
    "Underlying deficient design work by Engineer B\u0027s firm"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (for the discovery); Engineer B (for the underlying condition discovered)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Thorough review of the documentation by a qualified peer reviewer combined with the presence of code-violating work in that documentation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Weighing the competing considerations in this case, the Board of Ethical Review is of the opinion that Engineer A will have to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion concerning this matter depending upon all of the facts and circumstances.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Discovery of potential safety code violations
  • Existence of competing Code obligations (confidentiality vs. cooperation with authorities)
  • Engineer A's status as a licensed professional engineer with paramount duty to public safety
Sufficient Factors:
  • Knowledge of a potential public danger combined with the professional obligation that public safety is paramount
Counterfactual Test: Without discovery of the potential violations, no judgment about imminent risk of harm would have been required
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Safety Violation Discovery
    Engineer A discovers potential safety code violations in Engineer B's work
  2. Ethical Conflict Recognition
    Confidentiality duty conflicts with the duty to protect public health and safety
  3. Risk Assessment
    Engineer A must exercise judgment and discretion to determine whether there is imminent risk of harm such as loss of life or serious injury
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Safety Violation Discovery
  • effect: Risk Assessment
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Weighing the competing considerations in this case, the Board of Ethical Review is of the opinion that Engineer A will have to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion concerning this matter depending upon all of the facts and circumstances.
  • necessaryFactors content: Discovery of potential safety code violations; Existence of competing Code obligations (confidentiality vs. cooperation with authorities); Engineer A's status as a licensed professional engineer with paramount duty to public safety
  • sufficientFactors content: Knowledge of a potential public danger combined with the professional obligation that public safety is paramount
  • counterfactual content: Without discovery of the potential violations, no judgment about imminent risk of harm would have been required
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew the work may violate safety codes and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare
  • interveningFactors content: Signed confidentiality agreement; NSPE Code Sections III.4 and II.1.e in tension
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Safety Violation Discovery', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A discovers potential safety code violations in Engineer B's work"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Ethical Conflict Recognition', 'proeth:description': 'Confidentiality duty conflicts with the duty to protect public health and safety'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Risk Assessment', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A must exercise judgment and discretion to determine whether there is imminent risk of harm such as loss of life or serious injury'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#",
    "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/181#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.888517+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew the work may violate safety codes and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Weighing the competing considerations in this case, the Board of Ethical Review is of the opinion that Engineer A will have to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion concerning this matter depending upon all of the facts and circumstances.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A discovers potential safety code violations in Engineer B\u0027s work",
      "proeth:element": "Safety Violation Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Confidentiality duty conflicts with the duty to protect public health and safety",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Conflict Recognition",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A must exercise judgment and discretion to determine whether there is imminent risk of harm such as loss of life or serious injury",
      "proeth:element": "Risk Assessment",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Safety Violation Discovery",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without discovery of the potential violations, no judgment about imminent risk of harm would have been required",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Risk Assessment",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Signed confidentiality agreement",
    "NSPE Code Sections III.4 and II.1.e in tension"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Discovery of potential safety code violations",
    "Existence of competing Code obligations (confidentiality vs. cooperation with authorities)",
    "Engineer A\u0027s status as a licensed professional engineer with paramount duty to public safety"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Knowledge of a potential public danger combined with the professional obligation that public safety is paramount"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: a more appropriate action would be for Engineer A to expeditiously discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of this issue.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's determination that the work may violate safety codes and could endanger the public
  • Availability of Engineer B for direct communication
  • Board guidance favoring notification of Engineer B as the first appropriate step
Sufficient Factors:
  • A judgment that a potential public danger exists combined with the professional duty to take appropriate steps by notifying Engineer B
Counterfactual Test: If Engineer A's assessment found no potential violation or danger, there would be no basis compelling the expeditious discussion with Engineer B
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Risk Assessment
    Engineer A weighs facts and circumstances to gauge risk to the public
  2. Collegial Issue Discussion
    Engineer A expeditiously discusses the potential violations with Engineer B seeking clarification and early resolution
  3. Resolution or Escalation
    Either the issue is resolved, or Engineer A informs Engineer B that his only alternative is cooperating with proper authorities
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Risk Assessment
  • effect: Collegial Issue Discussion
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: a more appropriate action would be for Engineer A to expeditiously discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of this issue.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's determination that the work may violate safety codes and could endanger the public; Availability of Engineer B for direct communication; Board guidance favoring notification of Engineer B as the first appropriate step
  • sufficientFactors content: A judgment that a potential public danger exists combined with the professional duty to take appropriate steps by notifying Engineer B
  • counterfactual content: If Engineer A's assessment found no potential violation or danger, there would be no basis compelling the expeditious discussion with Engineer B
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew of the potential violations and that his paramount responsibility is to protect public health and safety
  • interveningFactors content: Confidentiality agreement constraining outside disclosure; Collegial nature of the peer review program
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Risk Assessment', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A weighs facts and circumstances to gauge risk to the public'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Collegial Issue Discussion', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A expeditiously discusses the potential violations with Engineer B seeking clarification and early resolution'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Resolution or Escalation', 'proeth:description': 'Either the issue is resolved, or Engineer A informs Engineer B that his only alternative is cooperating with proper authorities'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#",
    "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/181#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.888538+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew of the potential violations and that his paramount responsibility is to protect public health and safety",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "a more appropriate action would be for Engineer A to expeditiously discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of this issue.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A weighs facts and circumstances to gauge risk to the public",
      "proeth:element": "Risk Assessment",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A expeditiously discusses the potential violations with Engineer B seeking clarification and early resolution",
      "proeth:element": "Collegial Issue Discussion",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Either the issue is resolved, or Engineer A informs Engineer B that his only alternative is cooperating with proper authorities",
      "proeth:element": "Resolution or Escalation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Risk Assessment",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If Engineer A\u0027s assessment found no potential violation or danger, there would be no basis compelling the expeditious discussion with Engineer B",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Collegial Issue Discussion",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Confidentiality agreement constraining outside disclosure",
    "Collegial nature of the peer review program"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s determination that the work may violate safety codes and could endanger the public",
    "Availability of Engineer B for direct communication",
    "Board guidance favoring notification of Engineer B as the first appropriate step"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "A judgment that a potential public danger exists combined with the professional duty to take appropriate steps by notifying Engineer B"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: In the event that Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions, Engineer A may cooperate with proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer B's failure to take appropriate corrective actions after notification
  • Engineer A's knowledge of the alleged Code violation
  • Continuing risk to public health, safety, and welfare
Sufficient Factors:
  • Failure to correct after notification combined with Engineer A's paramount duty to protect the public and Code obligation to cooperate with proper authorities
Counterfactual Test: If Engineer B had taken appropriate corrective actions, cooperation with authorities would not be triggered and confidentiality could be maintained
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer B (for the failure triggering disclosure); Engineer A (for executing the duty to cooperate)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Collegial Issue Discussion
    Engineer A notifies Engineer B of the potential safety code violations
  2. Corrective Action Failure
    Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions (hypothetical conditional)
  3. Final Warning
    Engineer A informs Engineer B that his only alternative as a professional engineer is to cooperate with proper authorities
  4. Authority Cooperation
    Engineer A cooperates with proper authorities, furnishing such information or assistance as may be required
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Corrective Action Failure
  • effect: Authority Cooperation
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer B (for the failure triggering disclosure); Engineer A (for executing the duty to cooperate)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: In the event that Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions, Engineer A may cooperate with proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer B's failure to take appropriate corrective actions after notification; Engineer A's knowledge of the alleged Code violation; Continuing risk to public health, safety, and welfare
  • sufficientFactors content: Failure to correct after notification combined with Engineer A's paramount duty to protect the public and Code obligation to cooperate with proper authorities
  • counterfactual content: If Engineer B had taken appropriate corrective actions, cooperation with authorities would not be triggered and confidentiality could be maintained
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer B would know of the alleged violations after Engineer A's notification; Engineer A knows cooperation with authorities is his only remaining alternative
  • interveningFactors content: Confidentiality agreement; NSPE Code Section II.1.e duty to cooperate with proper authorities
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Collegial Issue Discussion', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A notifies Engineer B of the potential safety code violations'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Corrective Action Failure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions (hypothetical conditional)'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Final Warning', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A informs Engineer B that his only alternative as a professional engineer is to cooperate with proper authorities'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Authority Cooperation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A cooperates with proper authorities, furnishing such information or assistance as may be required'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#",
    "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/181#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T08:25:31.888556+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer B would know of the alleged violations after Engineer A\u0027s notification; Engineer A knows cooperation with authorities is his only remaining alternative",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "In the event that Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions, Engineer A may cooperate with proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A notifies Engineer B of the potential safety code violations",
      "proeth:element": "Collegial Issue Discussion",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions (hypothetical conditional)",
      "proeth:element": "Corrective Action Failure",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A informs Engineer B that his only alternative as a professional engineer is to cooperate with proper authorities",
      "proeth:element": "Final Warning",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A cooperates with proper authorities, furnishing such information or assistance as may be required",
      "proeth:element": "Authority Cooperation",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Corrective Action Failure",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If Engineer B had taken appropriate corrective actions, cooperation with authorities would not be triggered and confidentiality could be maintained",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Authority Cooperation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Confidentiality agreement",
    "NSPE Code Section II.1.e duty to cooperate with proper authorities"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s failure to take appropriate corrective actions after notification",
    "Engineer A\u0027s knowledge of the alleged Code violation",
    "Continuing risk to public health, safety, and welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B (for the failure triggering disclosure); Engineer A (for executing the duty to cooperate)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Failure to correct after notification combined with Engineer A\u0027s paramount duty to protect the public and Code obligation to cooperate with proper authorities"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (11)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
signing of confidentiality agreement equals
Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times 		selection as peer reviewer time:intervalEquals
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalEquals 		When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a 'confidentiality agreemen... [more]
signing of confidentiality agreement before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		peer review visit to Engineer B's firm time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A is asked to sign a 'confidentiality agreemen... [more]
completion of Engineer B's recent design projects before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		peer review of technical documentation time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design proje... [more]
review of technical documentation during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		peer review visit to Engineer B's firm time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		As part of a peer review visit, Engineer A visits Engineer B's firm. Following a review of the techn... [more]
review of technical documentation before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		discovery of potential safety code violations time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Following a review of the technical documentation ... Engineer A discovers that Engineer B's work ma... [more]
disclosure of firm information to peer reviewer during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		peer review process time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		agrees not to disclose information that is revealed to the peer reviewer about the firm being review... [more]
discovery of potential safety code violations before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		discussion with Engineer B seeking clarification and resolution time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		a more appropriate action would be for Engineer A to expeditiously discuss these issues with Enginee... [more]
determination of imminent risk of harm meets
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins 		notification of Engineer B time:intervalMeets
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalMeets 		If Engineer A determines that there is an imminent risk of harm to the public health and safety ... ... [more]
Engineer B's failure to take corrective action before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's cooperation with proper authorities time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		In the event that Engineer B fails to take appropriate corrective actions, Engineer A may cooperate ... [more]
discussion with Engineer B (unresolved) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		informing Engineer B of the alternative to cooperate with authorities time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		If Engineer A and Engineer B are unable to resolve the issue, Engineer A must inform Engineer B that... [more]
development of peer review programs by professions before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		the present case (Engineer A's peer review) time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		In recent years, various professions, including groups within the engineering profession, have succe... [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