This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-25 14:25; 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 87: Public Health and Safety—Building Codes to Address Environmental Risk

26 entities 6 actions 1 events 9 causal chains 9 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 12 sequenced markers
Client Engagement Retention Start of engagement
New Data Release During Engineer A's engagement, before the design standard dispute
Precedent BER Case 04-8, after discovery of the fill
Precedent BER Case 04-8, contingent on client inaction
Precedent BER Case 07-6, at report preparation
Professional Safety Determination During the coastal risk assessment
Client Standard Refusal After Engineer A's recommendation
Continued Client Persuasion Immediate future, following the client's refusal
Project Withdrawal Contingent future, if Client A refuses the design standard
Building Code Advocacy Future advocacy, after or alongside the client dispute
A few months after Engineer A completed the wetland delineation services (precedent case)
During the firm's analysis of the property (precedent case)
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 9 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
Engineer A's determination regarding the 100-year storm surge standard time:intervalBefore Owner's refusal to agree to the standard
Client A retaining Engineer A time:intervalBefore Engineer A's determination regarding the 100-year storm surge standard
release of new information and development of the new algorithm time:intervalBefore Engineer A's determination regarding the 100-year storm surge standard
Engineer A's hydrodynamic modeling and risk assessment engagement time:intervalOverlaps dispute with Client A over the design standard
present dispute (Owner's refusal) time:intervalBefore recommended continued discussions with Client A
continued discussions with Client A time:intervalBefore Engineer A's withdrawal from the project (conditional)
prior BER decisions (Cases 04-8 and 07-6) time:intervalBefore the present case analysis
construction of the residential development time:intervalBefore future residents being exposed to storm surge risk
advocacy for updated region-wide building codes time:intervalOverlaps the residential development project being built
Extracted Actions (6)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Client A, a developer, retains Engineer A to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a residential development project near a coastal area.

Temporal Marker: Start of engagement instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Professional Engagement

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Obtain professional hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for the planned residential development

Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Professional Engagement
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Client A, a developer, retains Engineer A to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a residential development project near a coastal area.
  • hasAgent content: Client A
  • temporalMarker content: Start of engagement
  • eventRoleContext content: Developer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Obtain professional hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for the planned residential development
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is retained by Client A, a developer, to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment in connection with potential climate change and sea level rise for a residential development project near a coastal area.
  • 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/87#",
    "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/87#Action_Client_Engagement_Retention",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.600798+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Client A, a developer, retains Engineer A to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a residential development project near a coastal area.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Developer",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Client A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Professional Engagement"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Obtain professional hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for the planned residential development",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Start of engagement",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A is retained by Client A, a developer, to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment in connection with potential climate change and sea level rise for a residential development project near a coastal area."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Client Engagement Retention"
}

Description: Engineer A, based on newly released information and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data, determines that the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation due to public safety risks.

Temporal Marker: During the coastal risk assessment instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Public Safety Risk Identified
  • Design Standard Recommendation Pending

Mental State: reasonable and good faith professional judgment based upon technical competence

Intended Outcome: Protect future residents and the general public from storm surge risk and prevent property and environmental damage

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Increased cost of the residential development project
Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety
Fulfills (1)
  • Obligation to Exercise Professional Judgment Based on Technical Competence
Guided By Principles:
  • Paramountcy of Public Health and Safety
  • Protection of the Environment
Required Capabilities:
Hydrodynamic modeling Coastal risk assessment Interpretation of historic weather data and algorithms
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Obligation to Exercise Professional Judgment Based on Technical Competence
  • guidedByPrinciple: Paramountcy of Public Health and Safety; Protection of the Environment
  • requiresCapability: Hydrodynamic modeling; Coastal risk assessment; Interpretation of historic weather data and algorithms
  • initiates: Public Safety Risk Identified; Design Standard Recommendation Pending
  • raisesObligation: Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A, based on newly released information and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data, determines that the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation due to public safety risks.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: During the coastal risk assessment
  • eventRoleContext content: Engineer in private practice
  • hasMentalState content: reasonable and good faith professional judgment based upon technical competence
  • intendedOutcome content: Protect future residents and the general public from storm surge risk and prevent property and environmental damage
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Increased cost of the residential development project
  • textReferences content: Based on newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, due to public safety risks even at lower projections of future surge level rise.
  • 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/87#",
    "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/87#Action_Professional_Safety_Determination",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.600959+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A, based on newly released information and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data, determines that the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation due to public safety risks.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Engineer in private practice",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Increased cost of the residential development project"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Obligation to Exercise Professional Judgment Based on Technical Competence"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Paramountcy of Public Health and Safety",
    "Protection of the Environment"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "reasonable and good faith professional judgment based upon technical competence",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Public Safety Risk Identified",
    "Design Standard Recommendation Pending"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Protect future residents and the general public from storm surge risk and prevent property and environmental damage",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Hydrodynamic modeling",
    "Coastal risk assessment",
    "Interpretation of historic weather data and algorithms"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the coastal risk assessment",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Based on newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, due to public safety risks even at lower projections of future surge level rise."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Professional Safety Determination"
}

Description: The Owner refuses to agree that the residential development project be built to the 100-year projected storm surge elevation, citing the increased cost.

Temporal Marker: After Engineer A's recommendation instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Client Engineer Standoff
  • Unmitigated Public Safety Risk

Mental State: deliberate, cost-motivated

Intended Outcome: Reduce project costs by avoiding the more stringent design standard

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Future residents and the general public exposed to storm surge risk
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Client Engineer Standoff; Unmitigated Public Safety Risk
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The Owner refuses to agree that the residential development project be built to the 100-year projected storm surge elevation, citing the increased cost.
  • hasAgent content: Owner/Client A
  • temporalMarker content: After Engineer A's recommendation
  • eventRoleContext content: Developer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate, cost-motivated
  • intendedOutcome content: Reduce project costs by avoiding the more stringent design standard
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Future residents and the general public exposed to storm surge risk
  • textReferences content: Because of the increased cost, Owner refuses to agree that the residential development project be built to a 100-year projection storm surge elevation.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#",
    "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/87#Action_Client_Standard_Refusal",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.601005+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The Owner refuses to agree that the residential development project be built to the 100-year projected storm surge elevation, citing the increased cost.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Developer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Future residents and the general public exposed to storm surge risk"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Owner/Client A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate, cost-motivated",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Client Engineer Standoff",
    "Unmitigated Public Safety Risk"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Reduce project costs by avoiding the more stringent design standard",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Engineer A\u0027s recommendation",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Because of the increased cost, Owner refuses to agree that the residential development project be built to a 100-year projection storm surge elevation."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Client Standard Refusal"
}

Description: The BER prescribes that Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince the client of the danger to future residents and the general public and the potential for significant property and environmental damage.

Temporal Marker: Immediate future, following the client's refusal interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Ongoing Client Negotiation

Mental State: deliberate persuasive engagement

Intended Outcome: Convince Client A to adopt the 100-year projected storm surge elevation design standard

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Possible continued disagreement with the client
Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety
Guided By Principles:
  • Paramountcy of Public Health and Safety
  • Protection of the Environment
Required Capabilities:
Professional communication Risk explanation
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Paramountcy of Public Health and Safety; Protection of the Environment
  • requiresCapability: Professional communication; Risk explanation
  • initiates: Ongoing Client Negotiation
  • raisesObligation: Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The BER prescribes that Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince the client of the danger to future residents and the general public and the potential for significant property and environmental damage.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Immediate future, following the client's refusal
  • eventRoleContext content: Engineer in private practice
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate persuasive engagement
  • intendedOutcome content: Convince Client A to adopt the 100-year projected storm surge elevation design standard
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Possible continued disagreement with the client
  • textReferences content: Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger in which future residents, as well as the general public, could be placed, and the potential for significant property and environmental damage.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#",
    "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/87#Action_Continued_Client_Persuasion",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.601035+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The BER prescribes that Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince the client of the danger to future residents and the general public and the potential for significant property and environmental damage.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Engineer in private practice",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Possible continued disagreement with the client"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Paramountcy of Public Health and Safety",
    "Protection of the Environment"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate persuasive engagement",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Ongoing Client Negotiation"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Convince Client A to adopt the 100-year projected storm surge elevation design standard",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional communication",
    "Risk explanation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Immediate future, following the client\u0027s refusal",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger in which future residents, as well as the general public, could be placed, and the potential for significant property and environmental damage."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Continued Client Persuasion"
}

Description: The BER prescribes that if Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A's design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.

Temporal Marker: Contingent future, if Client A refuses the design standard instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Engagement Terminated
Terminates (2)
  • Professional Engagement
  • Ongoing Client Negotiation

Mental State: deliberate refusal to proceed under an unsafe standard

Intended Outcome: Avoid professional participation in a project built to a standard that places the public at risk

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Loss of the engagement and associated fees
  • Project may proceed with another engineer
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety
Guided By Principles:
  • Paramountcy of Public Health and Safety
Required Capabilities:
Professional judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety
  • guidedByPrinciple: Paramountcy of Public Health and Safety
  • requiresCapability: Professional judgment
  • initiates: Engagement Terminated
  • terminates: Professional Engagement; Ongoing Client Negotiation
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The BER prescribes that if Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A's design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Contingent future, if Client A refuses the design standard
  • eventRoleContext content: Engineer in private practice
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate refusal to proceed under an unsafe standard
  • intendedOutcome content: Avoid professional participation in a project built to a standard that places the public at risk
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Loss of the engagement and associated fees; Project may proceed with another engineer
  • textReferences content: If Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A’s design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
  • 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/87#",
    "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/87#Action_Project_Withdrawal",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.601063+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The BER prescribes that if Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A\u0027s design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Engineer in private practice",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Loss of the engagement and associated fees",
    "Project may proceed with another engineer"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Paramountcy of Public Health and Safety"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate refusal to proceed under an unsafe standard",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Engagement Terminated"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Avoid professional participation in a project built to a standard that places the public at risk",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Contingent future, if Client A refuses the design standard",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Professional Engagement",
    "Ongoing Client Negotiation"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "If Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A\u2019s design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Project Withdrawal"
}

Description: The BER prescribes that Engineer A should also consider contacting local government officials to advocate for implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes in the geographical area where or near where the project is being built.

Temporal Marker: Future advocacy, after or alongside the client dispute interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Code Advocacy Initiated

Mental State: discretionary consideration, the case says should consider

Intended Outcome: Implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes protecting the public

Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety
Guided By Principles:
  • Paramountcy of Public Health and Safety
  • Protection of the Environment
Required Capabilities:
Technical knowledge of storm surge risk Public advocacy
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety
  • guidedByPrinciple: Paramountcy of Public Health and Safety; Protection of the Environment
  • requiresCapability: Technical knowledge of storm surge risk; Public advocacy
  • initiates: Code Advocacy Initiated
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The BER prescribes that Engineer A should also consider contacting local government officials to advocate for implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes in the geographical area where or near where the project is being built.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Future advocacy, after or alongside the client dispute
  • eventRoleContext content: Engineer in private practice
  • hasMentalState content: discretionary consideration, the case says should consider
  • intendedOutcome content: Implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes protecting the public
  • textReferences content: Engineer A should also consider contacting local government officials to advocate for the implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes in all jurisdictions for the geographical area where or near where the residential development project is being built.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 7
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#",
    "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/87#Action_Building_Code_Advocacy",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.601090+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The BER prescribes that Engineer A should also consider contacting local government officials to advocate for implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes in the geographical area where or near where the project is being built.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Engineer in private practice",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Paramountcy of Public Health and Safety",
    "Protection of the Environment"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "discretionary consideration, the case says should consider",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Code Advocacy Initiated"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes protecting the public",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Technical knowledge of storm surge risk",
    "Public advocacy"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Future advocacy, after or alongside the client dispute",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A should also consider contacting local government officials to advocate for the implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes in all jurisdictions for the geographical area where or near where the residential development project is being built."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Building Code Advocacy"
}
Extracted Events (1)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Newly released information and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data become available, leading Engineer A to conclude the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation due to public safety risks.

Temporal Marker: During Engineer A's engagement, before the design standard dispute instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Public Safety Risk
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Public Safety Risk
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Newly released information and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data become available, leading Engineer A to conclude the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation due to public safety risks.
  • temporalMarker content: During Engineer A's engagement, before the design standard dispute
  • textReferences content: Based on newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, due to public safety risks even at lower projections of future surge level rise.
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#",
    "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/87#Event_New_Data_Release",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.601163+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "Newly released information and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data become available, leading Engineer A to conclude the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation due to public safety risks.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Public Safety Risk"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During Engineer A\u0027s engagement, before the design standard dispute",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Based on newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, due to public safety risks even at lower projections of future surge level rise."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "New Data Release"
}
Causal Chains (9)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Engineer A is retained by Client A, a developer, to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment in connection with potential climate change and sea level rise for a residential development project near a coastal area.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Retention of Engineer A to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment
  • Engineer A's technical competence to analyze storm surge data
  • Existence of a residential development project near a coastal area
Sufficient Factors:
  • Retention for coastal risk assessment combined with availability of new weather data and algorithm was sufficient to produce a professional determination on the required design standard
Counterfactual Test: Without the engagement, Engineer A would not have performed the coastal risk assessment and would not have made the 100-year storm surge determination for this project
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Client A (developer)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Client Engagement Retention
    Client A retains Engineer A for hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment
  2. Risk Assessment Performance
    Engineer A performs modeling in connection with climate change and sea level rise
  3. Professional Safety Determination
    Engineer A determines the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Client Engagement Retention
  • effect: Professional Safety Determination
  • responsibleAgent: Client A (developer)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A is retained by Client A, a developer, to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment in connection with potential climate change and sea level rise for a residential development project near a coastal area.
  • necessaryFactors content: Retention of Engineer A to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment; Engineer A's technical competence to analyze storm surge data; Existence of a residential development project near a coastal area
  • sufficientFactors content: Retention for coastal risk assessment combined with availability of new weather data and algorithm was sufficient to produce a professional determination on the required design standard
  • counterfactual content: Without the engagement, Engineer A would not have performed the coastal risk assessment and would not have made the 100-year storm surge determination for this project
  • agentKnowledge content: Client A knew the project was near a coastal area subject to potential climate change and sea level rise and sought expert assessment
  • interveningFactors content: Absence of any building code in the geographic area
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Client Engagement Retention', 'proeth:description': 'Client A retains Engineer A for hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Risk Assessment Performance', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A performs modeling in connection with climate change and sea level rise'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Professional Safety Determination', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A determines the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#",
    "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/87#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.601224+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Client A knew the project was near a coastal area subject to potential climate change and sea level rise and sought expert assessment",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A is retained by Client A, a developer, to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment in connection with potential climate change and sea level rise for a residential development project near a coastal area.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client A retains Engineer A for hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment",
      "proeth:element": "Client Engagement Retention",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A performs modeling in connection with climate change and sea level rise",
      "proeth:element": "Risk Assessment Performance",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A determines the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation",
      "proeth:element": "Professional Safety Determination",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Client Engagement Retention",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the engagement, Engineer A would not have performed the coastal risk assessment and would not have made the 100-year storm surge determination for this project",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Professional Safety Determination",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Absence of any building code in the geographic area"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Retention of Engineer A to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment",
    "Engineer A\u0027s technical competence to analyze storm surge data",
    "Existence of a residential development project near a coastal area"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Client A (developer)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Retention for coastal risk assessment combined with availability of new weather data and algorithm was sufficient to produce a professional determination on the required design standard"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: If appropriate steps were not taken by the client, Engineer A had an obligation to bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Prior notification of the client about the violation
  • Client's failure to take appropriate remedial steps
  • Engineer A's continuing knowledge of an unremedied legal violation
Sufficient Factors:
  • Client inaction after notification of a substantial legal violation is sufficient to trigger the obligation to report to appropriate authorities
Counterfactual Test: If the client had taken appropriate remedial steps after notification, escalation to authorities would not have been required
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (BER Case 04-8), with the client bearing responsibility for the underlying violation
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Client Violation Notification
    Engineer A notifies the client of the legal violation and required remediation
  2. Client Inaction
    Appropriate steps are not taken by the client to remedy the violation
  3. Authority Reporting Escalation
    Engineer A brings the matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Client Violation Notification
  • effect: Authority Reporting Escalation
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (BER Case 04-8), with the client bearing responsibility for the underlying violation
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: If appropriate steps were not taken by the client, Engineer A had an obligation to bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
  • necessaryFactors content: Prior notification of the client about the violation; Client's failure to take appropriate remedial steps; Engineer A's continuing knowledge of an unremedied legal violation
  • sufficientFactors content: Client inaction after notification of a substantial legal violation is sufficient to trigger the obligation to report to appropriate authorities
  • counterfactual content: If the client had taken appropriate remedial steps after notification, escalation to authorities would not have been required
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew the violation persisted and that the client had failed to remedy it or obtain a variance
  • interveningFactors content: Client's refusal or failure to take remedial steps
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Client Violation Notification', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A notifies the client of the legal violation and required remediation'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Client Inaction', 'proeth:description': 'Appropriate steps are not taken by the client to remedy the violation'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Authority Reporting Escalation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A brings the matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#",
    "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/87#CausalChain_8",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.601414+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew the violation persisted and that the client had failed to remedy it or obtain a variance",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "If appropriate steps were not taken by the client, Engineer A had an obligation to bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A notifies the client of the legal violation and required remediation",
      "proeth:element": "Client Violation Notification",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Appropriate steps are not taken by the client to remedy the violation",
      "proeth:element": "Client Inaction",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A brings the matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities",
      "proeth:element": "Authority Reporting Escalation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Client Violation Notification",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If the client had taken appropriate remedial steps after notification, escalation to authorities would not have been required",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Authority Reporting Escalation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Client\u0027s refusal or failure to take remedial steps"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Prior notification of the client about the violation",
    "Client\u0027s failure to take appropriate remedial steps",
    "Engineer A\u0027s continuing knowledge of an unremedied legal violation"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (BER Case 04-8), with the client bearing responsibility for the underlying violation",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Client inaction after notification of a substantial legal violation is sufficient to trigger the obligation to report to appropriate authorities"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Based on newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, due to public safety risks even at lower projections of future surge level rise.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Newly released information becoming available
  • Recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data
  • Engineer A's professional judgment applied to the data
Sufficient Factors:
  • New data plus new algorithm plus Engineer A's technical analysis were together sufficient to ground the 100-year surge elevation determination
Counterfactual Test: Without the newly released information and algorithm, Engineer A would have lacked the technical basis identified in the facts for the 100-year projection determination
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. New Data Release
    Newly released information and a new algorithm with newly identified historic weather data become available
  2. Technical Analysis
    Engineer A applies the data and algorithm to the coastal risk assessment
  3. Professional Safety Determination
    Engineer A concludes the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation due to public safety risks
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: New Data Release
  • effect: Professional Safety Determination
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Based on newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, due to public safety risks even at lower projections of future surge level rise.
  • necessaryFactors content: Newly released information becoming available; Recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data; Engineer A's professional judgment applied to the data
  • sufficientFactors content: New data plus new algorithm plus Engineer A's technical analysis were together sufficient to ground the 100-year surge elevation determination
  • counterfactual content: Without the newly released information and algorithm, Engineer A would have lacked the technical basis identified in the facts for the 100-year projection determination
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew of the newly released information, algorithm, and public safety risks even at lower surge projections
  • interveningFactors content: Timing of the data release and algorithm development was external to Engineer A
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'New Data Release', 'proeth:description': 'Newly released information and a new algorithm with newly identified historic weather data become available'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Technical Analysis', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A applies the data and algorithm to the coastal risk assessment'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Professional Safety Determination', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A concludes the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation due to public safety risks'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#",
    "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/87#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.601256+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew of the newly released information, algorithm, and public safety risks even at lower surge projections",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Based on newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, due to public safety risks even at lower projections of future surge level rise.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Newly released information and a new algorithm with newly identified historic weather data become available",
      "proeth:element": "New Data Release",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A applies the data and algorithm to the coastal risk assessment",
      "proeth:element": "Technical Analysis",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A concludes the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation due to public safety risks",
      "proeth:element": "Professional Safety Determination",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "New Data Release",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the newly released information and algorithm, Engineer A would have lacked the technical basis identified in the facts for the 100-year projection determination",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Professional Safety Determination",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Timing of the data release and algorithm development was external to Engineer A"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Newly released information becoming available",
    "Recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data",
    "Engineer A\u0027s professional judgment applied to the data"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "New data plus new algorithm plus Engineer A\u0027s technical analysis were together sufficient to ground the 100-year surge elevation determination"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Because of the increased cost, Owner refuses to agree that the residential development project be built to a 100-year projection storm surge elevation.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's recommendation of the 100-year storm surge elevation standard
  • Increased cost associated with building to that standard
  • Owner's prioritization of cost over the recommended safety standard
Sufficient Factors:
  • The recommendation combined with the increased cost and the Owner's cost sensitivity was sufficient to produce the refusal
Counterfactual Test: Without Engineer A's determination that the 100-year standard was needed, there would have been no standard for the Owner to refuse
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Owner/Client A
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Professional Safety Determination
    Engineer A recommends the 100-year projected storm surge elevation standard
  2. Cost Increase Recognition
    Owner recognizes the increased cost of building to the 100-year projection
  3. Client Standard Refusal
    Owner refuses to agree that the project be built to the 100-year projection storm surge elevation
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Professional Safety Determination
  • effect: Client Standard Refusal
  • responsibleAgent: Owner/Client A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Because of the increased cost, Owner refuses to agree that the residential development project be built to a 100-year projection storm surge elevation.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's recommendation of the 100-year storm surge elevation standard; Increased cost associated with building to that standard; Owner's prioritization of cost over the recommended safety standard
  • sufficientFactors content: The recommendation combined with the increased cost and the Owner's cost sensitivity was sufficient to produce the refusal
  • counterfactual content: Without Engineer A's determination that the 100-year standard was needed, there would have been no standard for the Owner to refuse
  • agentKnowledge content: Owner knew Engineer A recommended the 100-year standard and knew the refusal was motivated by increased cost
  • interveningFactors content: Increased construction cost; Absence of any building code compelling the higher standard
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Professional Safety Determination', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A recommends the 100-year projected storm surge elevation standard'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Cost Increase Recognition', 'proeth:description': 'Owner recognizes the increased cost of building to the 100-year projection'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Client Standard Refusal', 'proeth:description': 'Owner refuses to agree that the project be built to the 100-year projection storm surge elevation'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#",
    "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/87#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.601279+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Owner knew Engineer A recommended the 100-year standard and knew the refusal was motivated by increased cost",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Because of the increased cost, Owner refuses to agree that the residential development project be built to a 100-year projection storm surge elevation.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A recommends the 100-year projected storm surge elevation standard",
      "proeth:element": "Professional Safety Determination",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner recognizes the increased cost of building to the 100-year projection",
      "proeth:element": "Cost Increase Recognition",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner refuses to agree that the project be built to the 100-year projection storm surge elevation",
      "proeth:element": "Client Standard Refusal",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Professional Safety Determination",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer A\u0027s determination that the 100-year standard was needed, there would have been no standard for the Owner to refuse",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Client Standard Refusal",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Increased construction cost",
    "Absence of any building code compelling the higher standard"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s recommendation of the 100-year storm surge elevation standard",
    "Increased cost associated with building to that standard",
    "Owner\u0027s prioritization of cost over the recommended safety standard"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Owner/Client A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The recommendation combined with the increased cost and the Owner\u0027s cost sensitivity was sufficient to produce the refusal"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger in which future residents, as well as the general public, could be placed, and the potential for significant property and environmental damage.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Owner's refusal of the 100-year standard
  • Engineer A's good faith belief that a less stringent standard places the public at risk
  • NSPE Code obligation to hold public safety paramount
Sufficient Factors:
  • The refusal combined with the apparent substantial risk to life and property was sufficient to trigger the ethical duty of continued persuasion
Counterfactual Test: Had the Owner agreed to the 100-year standard, continued persuasion efforts would have been unnecessary
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Client Standard Refusal
    Owner refuses the 100-year projection standard due to increased cost
  2. Ethical Obligation Activation
    Engineer A's paramount duty to protect public safety is engaged against the client's position
  3. Continued Client Persuasion
    Engineer A continues discussions to convince Client A of the danger to future residents and the public
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Client Standard Refusal
  • effect: Continued Client Persuasion
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger in which future residents, as well as the general public, could be placed, and the potential for significant property and environmental damage.
  • necessaryFactors content: Owner's refusal of the 100-year standard; Engineer A's good faith belief that a less stringent standard places the public at risk; NSPE Code obligation to hold public safety paramount
  • sufficientFactors content: The refusal combined with the apparent substantial risk to life and property was sufficient to trigger the ethical duty of continued persuasion
  • counterfactual content: Had the Owner agreed to the 100-year standard, continued persuasion efforts would have been unnecessary
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew of the substantial risk to life and property and the Owner's cost-based refusal
  • interveningFactors content: Owner's cost-driven resistance; No building code to compel compliance
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Client Standard Refusal', 'proeth:description': 'Owner refuses the 100-year projection standard due to increased cost'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Ethical Obligation Activation', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A's paramount duty to protect public safety is engaged against the client's position"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Continued Client Persuasion', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A continues discussions to convince Client A of the danger to future residents and the public'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#",
    "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/87#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.601300+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew of the substantial risk to life and property and the Owner\u0027s cost-based refusal",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger in which future residents, as well as the general public, could be placed, and the potential for significant property and environmental damage.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner refuses the 100-year projection standard due to increased cost",
      "proeth:element": "Client Standard Refusal",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s paramount duty to protect public safety is engaged against the client\u0027s position",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Obligation Activation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A continues discussions to convince Client A of the danger to future residents and the public",
      "proeth:element": "Continued Client Persuasion",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Client Standard Refusal",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the Owner agreed to the 100-year standard, continued persuasion efforts would have been unnecessary",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Continued Client Persuasion",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Owner\u0027s cost-driven resistance",
    "No building code to compel compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Owner\u0027s refusal of the 100-year standard",
    "Engineer A\u0027s good faith belief that a less stringent standard places the public at risk",
    "NSPE Code obligation to hold public safety paramount"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The refusal combined with the apparent substantial risk to life and property was sufficient to trigger the ethical duty of continued persuasion"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: If Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A’s design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Persuasion attempts by Engineer A
  • Client A's continued refusal after those attempts
  • Engineer A's ethical duty not to participate in a design placing the public at substantial risk
Sufficient Factors:
  • Exhausted persuasion combined with continued client refusal and the substantial risk to life and property is sufficient to require withdrawal
Counterfactual Test: If persuasion succeeded and Client A accepted the standard, withdrawal would not be required
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (triggered by Client A's continued refusal)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Continued Client Persuasion
    Engineer A pursues discussions to convince Client A of the danger
  2. Persistent Client Refusal
    Client A continues to refuse Engineer A's design standard
  3. Project Withdrawal
    Engineer A withdraws from the project rather than endorse an unsafe standard
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Continued Client Persuasion
  • effect: Project Withdrawal
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (triggered by Client A's continued refusal)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: If Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A’s design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
  • necessaryFactors content: Persuasion attempts by Engineer A; Client A's continued refusal after those attempts; Engineer A's ethical duty not to participate in a design placing the public at substantial risk
  • sufficientFactors content: Exhausted persuasion combined with continued client refusal and the substantial risk to life and property is sufficient to require withdrawal
  • counterfactual content: If persuasion succeeded and Client A accepted the standard, withdrawal would not be required
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knows the design standard is refused despite documented risk to future residents and the general public
  • interveningFactors content: Client A's continued refusal; Absence of a building code mandating the safer standard
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Continued Client Persuasion', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A pursues discussions to convince Client A of the danger'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Persistent Client Refusal', 'proeth:description': "Client A continues to refuse Engineer A's design standard"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Project Withdrawal', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A withdraws from the project rather than endorse an unsafe standard'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#",
    "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/87#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.601321+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knows the design standard is refused despite documented risk to future residents and the general public",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "If Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A\u2019s design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A pursues discussions to convince Client A of the danger",
      "proeth:element": "Continued Client Persuasion",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client A continues to refuse Engineer A\u0027s design standard",
      "proeth:element": "Persistent Client Refusal",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A withdraws from the project rather than endorse an unsafe standard",
      "proeth:element": "Project Withdrawal",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Continued Client Persuasion",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If persuasion succeeded and Client A accepted the standard, withdrawal would not be required",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Project Withdrawal",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Client A\u0027s continued refusal",
    "Absence of a building code mandating the safer standard"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Persuasion attempts by Engineer A",
    "Client A\u0027s continued refusal after those attempts",
    "Engineer A\u0027s ethical duty not to participate in a design placing the public at substantial risk"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (triggered by Client A\u0027s continued refusal)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Exhausted persuasion combined with continued client refusal and the substantial risk to life and property is sufficient to require withdrawal"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A should also consider contacting local government officials to advocate for the implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes in all jurisdictions for the geographical area where or near where the residential development project is being built.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Absence of any building code in the geographic area
  • Owner's refusal to voluntarily adopt the safer standard
  • Identified public safety risk from lower surge projections
Sufficient Factors:
  • The regulatory gap combined with the client's cost-driven refusal and the substantial public risk is sufficient to warrant advocacy to government officials
Counterfactual Test: If a building code mandating the 100-year standard existed or the Owner had agreed, advocacy for new codes would be less urgent
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Regulatory Gap Recognition
    The geographic area has no building code in place
  2. Client Standard Refusal
    Owner refuses the 100-year standard due to increased cost, leaving no enforcement mechanism
  3. Building Code Advocacy
    Engineer A considers contacting local government officials to advocate for updated region-wide building codes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Client Standard Refusal
  • effect: Building Code Advocacy
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A should also consider contacting local government officials to advocate for the implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes in all jurisdictions for the geographical area where or near where the residential development project is being built.
  • necessaryFactors content: Absence of any building code in the geographic area; Owner's refusal to voluntarily adopt the safer standard; Identified public safety risk from lower surge projections
  • sufficientFactors content: The regulatory gap combined with the client's cost-driven refusal and the substantial public risk is sufficient to warrant advocacy to government officials
  • counterfactual content: If a building code mandating the 100-year standard existed or the Owner had agreed, advocacy for new codes would be less urgent
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knows the area currently has no building code in place and that the client refuses the safer standard
  • interveningFactors content: Local government's authority over code adoption; Regional regulatory gap
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Regulatory Gap Recognition', 'proeth:description': 'The geographic area has no building code in place'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Client Standard Refusal', 'proeth:description': 'Owner refuses the 100-year standard due to increased cost, leaving no enforcement mechanism'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Building Code Advocacy', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A considers contacting local government officials to advocate for updated region-wide building codes'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: indirect
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#",
    "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/87#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.601343+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knows the area currently has no building code in place and that the client refuses the safer standard",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A should also consider contacting local government officials to advocate for the implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes in all jurisdictions for the geographical area where or near where the residential development project is being built.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "The geographic area has no building code in place",
      "proeth:element": "Regulatory Gap Recognition",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner refuses the 100-year standard due to increased cost, leaving no enforcement mechanism",
      "proeth:element": "Client Standard Refusal",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A considers contacting local government officials to advocate for updated region-wide building codes",
      "proeth:element": "Building Code Advocacy",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Client Standard Refusal",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If a building code mandating the 100-year standard existed or the Owner had agreed, advocacy for new codes would be less urgent",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Building Code Advocacy",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Local government\u0027s authority over code adoption",
    "Regional regulatory gap"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Absence of any building code in the geographic area",
    "Owner\u0027s refusal to voluntarily adopt the safer standard",
    "Identified public safety risk from lower surge projections"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The regulatory gap combined with the client\u0027s cost-driven refusal and the substantial public risk is sufficient to warrant advocacy to government officials"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: In its decision, the BER set forth an appropriate course of action for Engineer A, concluding that Engineer A should contact the client, inquire about the actions the client had taken, and point out that the actions were a violation of the law—and that steps needed to be taken to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from the proper authorities.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A observing the fill material on the wetlands
  • The fill constituting a substantial violation of federal and state laws
  • Engineer A's professional knowledge that the fill lacked permits, variances, or permissions
Sufficient Factors:
  • Discovery of an unpermitted, substantial legal violation by a former client is sufficient to trigger the ethical duty to notify the client and demand remediation
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A never observed the fill, no notification duty would have arisen in that case
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (BER Case 04-8)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Wetland Fill Discovery
    Engineer A drives by the property and notices unpermitted fill material across the wetlands
  2. Violation Recognition
    Engineer A recognizes the fill as a substantial violation of federal and state laws
  3. Client Violation Notification
    Engineer A contacts the client, inquires about the actions, and points out the legal violation and required remedial steps
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Wetland Fill Discovery
  • effect: Client Violation Notification
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (BER Case 04-8)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: In its decision, the BER set forth an appropriate course of action for Engineer A, concluding that Engineer A should contact the client, inquire about the actions the client had taken, and point out that the actions were a violation of the law—and that steps needed to be taken to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from the proper authorities.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A observing the fill material on the wetlands; The fill constituting a substantial violation of federal and state laws; Engineer A's professional knowledge that the fill lacked permits, variances, or permissions
  • sufficientFactors content: Discovery of an unpermitted, substantial legal violation by a former client is sufficient to trigger the ethical duty to notify the client and demand remediation
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A never observed the fill, no notification duty would have arisen in that case
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew the installation of fill material was a substantial violation of federal and state laws and regulations
  • interveningFactors content: Client's independent decision to install fill without permits
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Wetland Fill Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A drives by the property and notices unpermitted fill material across the wetlands'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Violation Recognition', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A recognizes the fill as a substantial violation of federal and state laws'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Client Violation Notification', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A contacts the client, inquires about the actions, and points out the legal violation and required remedial steps'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#",
    "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/87#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.601391+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew the installation of fill material was a substantial violation of federal and state laws and regulations",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "In its decision, the BER set forth an appropriate course of action for Engineer A, concluding that Engineer A should contact the client, inquire about the actions the client had taken, and point out that the actions were a violation of the law\u2014and that steps needed to be taken to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from the proper authorities.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A drives by the property and notices unpermitted fill material across the wetlands",
      "proeth:element": "Wetland Fill Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A recognizes the fill as a substantial violation of federal and state laws",
      "proeth:element": "Violation Recognition",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A contacts the client, inquires about the actions, and points out the legal violation and required remedial steps",
      "proeth:element": "Client Violation Notification",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Wetland Fill Discovery",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A never observed the fill, no notification duty would have arisen in that case",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Client Violation Notification",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Client\u0027s independent decision to install fill without permits"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A observing the fill material on the wetlands",
    "The fill constituting a substantial violation of federal and state laws",
    "Engineer A\u0027s professional knowledge that the fill lacked permits, variances, or permissions"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (BER Case 04-8)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Discovery of an unpermitted, substantial legal violation by a former client is sufficient to trigger the ethical duty to notify the client and demand remediation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer’s proposal.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Biologist's finding that the condominium project could threaten the bird species
  • The species' status as 'threatened' under federal and state regulation
  • Engineer A's decision-making authority over report contents
Sufficient Factors:
  • Knowledge of the species threat combined with Engineer A's choice to exclude it from the public-authority report was sufficient to constitute the unethical omission
Counterfactual Test: Without the biologist's finding, there would have been no known information to omit; with the finding, ethical conduct required its inclusion and disclosure to the client
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (BER Case 07-6)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Species Threat Identification
    A biologist reports that the condominium project could threaten a bird species in the adjacent protected wetlands
  2. Report Information Omission
    Engineer A does not include the threat information in the written report to the public authority
  3. BER Ethical Determination
    The BER determines the omission was unethical, since engineers must include all relevant and pertinent information in reports
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Species Threat Identification
  • effect: Report Information Omission
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (BER Case 07-6)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer’s proposal.
  • necessaryFactors content: Biologist's finding that the condominium project could threaten the bird species; The species' status as 'threatened' under federal and state regulation; Engineer A's decision-making authority over report contents
  • sufficientFactors content: Knowledge of the species threat combined with Engineer A's choice to exclude it from the public-authority report was sufficient to constitute the unethical omission
  • counterfactual content: Without the biologist's finding, there would have been no known information to omit; with the finding, ethical conduct required its inclusion and disclosure to the client
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew from the firm's biologist that the project could threaten a species considered 'threatened' by federal and state environmental regulators
  • interveningFactors content: Developer client's interest in project approval
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Species Threat Identification', 'proeth:description': 'A biologist reports that the condominium project could threaten a bird species in the adjacent protected wetlands'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Report Information Omission', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A does not include the threat information in the written report to the public authority'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'BER Ethical Determination', 'proeth:description': 'The BER determines the omission was unethical, since engineers must include all relevant and pertinent information in reports'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#",
    "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/87#CausalChain_9",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T12:54:17.601434+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew from the firm\u0027s biologist that the project could threaten a species considered \u0027threatened\u0027 by federal and state environmental regulators",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer\u2019s proposal.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "A biologist reports that the condominium project could threaten a bird species in the adjacent protected wetlands",
      "proeth:element": "Species Threat Identification",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A does not include the threat information in the written report to the public authority",
      "proeth:element": "Report Information Omission",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The BER determines the omission was unethical, since engineers must include all relevant and pertinent information in reports",
      "proeth:element": "BER Ethical Determination",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Species Threat Identification",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the biologist\u0027s finding, there would have been no known information to omit; with the finding, ethical conduct required its inclusion and disclosure to the client",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Report Information Omission",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Developer client\u0027s interest in project approval"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Biologist\u0027s finding that the condominium project could threaten the bird species",
    "The species\u0027 status as \u0027threatened\u0027 under federal and state regulation",
    "Engineer A\u0027s decision-making authority over report contents"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (BER Case 07-6)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Knowledge of the species threat combined with Engineer A\u0027s choice to exclude it from the public-authority report was sufficient to constitute the unethical omission"
  ],
  "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 determination regarding the 100-year storm surge standard before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Owner's refusal to agree to the standard time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Because of the increased cost, Owner refuses to agree that the residential development project be bu... [more]
Client A retaining Engineer A before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's determination regarding the 100-year storm surge standard time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A is retained by Client A... Based on newly released information as well as a recently deve... [more]
release of new information and development of the new algorithm before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's determination regarding the 100-year storm surge standard time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Based on newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly id... [more]
Engineer A's hydrodynamic modeling and risk assessment engagement overlaps
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2 		dispute with Client A over the design standard time:intervalOverlaps
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalOverlaps 		Engineer A is retained by Client A... Owner refuses to agree that the residential development projec... [more]
present dispute (Owner's refusal) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		recommended continued discussions with Client A time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger.
continued discussions with Client A before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's withdrawal from the project (conditional) time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		If Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A's design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the ... [more]
prior BER decisions (Cases 04-8 and 07-6) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		the present case analysis time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		In its decision, the BER set forth an appropriate course of action... Turning to the facts in the pr... [more]
construction of the residential development before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		future residents being exposed to storm surge risk time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		a less stringent standard would place future residents, as well as the general public, at risk and h... [more]
advocacy for updated region-wide building codes overlaps
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2 		the residential development project being built time:intervalOverlaps
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalOverlaps 		Engineer A should also consider contacting local government officials to advocate for the implementa... [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