neuron support changes for deprecated < >

inariksit · Mar 16, 2021 · 05d7f67 · 05d7f67
1 parent a2876e7
commit 05d7f67
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 46 changed files with 126 additions and 107 deletions.
diff --git a/advantages_of_imprecision.md b/advantages_of_imprecision.md
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ tags:
 
 Some semantic vagueness is intended.
 
-Too rigid law/contract is not applicable for novel situations. This is one of the <fundamental_limits>.
+Too rigid law/contract is not applicable for novel situations. This is one of the [[[fundamental_limits]]].
 
 
 See also: ["I know it when I see it"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it)
diff --git a/automatic_contract_processing.md b/automatic_contract_processing.md
@@ -6,11 +6,11 @@ tags:
 
 # Automatic contract-processing
 
-Tasks that can be performed on one or more <contract>s.
+Tasks that can be performed on one or more [[[contract]]]s.
 
 This list is from [Camilleri (2017)](https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/53815/1/gupea_2077_53815_1.pdf), which in turn cites Prisacariu's presentation from 2013. Slides are no longer online.
 
-- <visualization>
+- [[[visualization]]]
 - Comparison of a contract against previous version
 - Conflict detection in one contract
 - Compatibility of two or more contracts with each other

diff --git a/blawx.md b/blawx.md
@@ -10,15 +10,15 @@ tags:
 
 [Blawx](https://www.blawx.com) is a visual develepment environment for a subset of
 ErgoLite, which is the open source
-version of <ergoai_ergolite>, also known as Flora-2. It is aimed at creating an
+version of [[[ergoai_ergolite]]], also known as Flora-2. It is aimed at creating an
 easy-to-learn interface for open-source declarative logic programming for use in
 Rules as Code.
 
 It uses the Blockly library from google to create ErgoLite code, and offers an API
 to a ErgoLite reasoner online that accepts code and queries in the Blawx format,
 and data in JSON.
 
-It is integrated with <docassemble> for use in expert systems through the
+It is integrated with [[[docassemble]]] for use in expert systems through the
 docassemble-blawx module.
 
 Jason wrote it.

diff --git a/catala.md b/catala.md
@@ -20,4 +20,4 @@ _Quote from the website_
 
 ## Formalism
 
-Catala is based on <default_logic>.
+Catala is based on [[[default_logic]]].
diff --git a/conceptual_and_lexical_ontologies.md b/conceptual_and_lexical_ontologies.md
@@ -6,9 +6,9 @@ tags:
 
 # Conceptual ontologies and lexical ontologies
 
-_Related to <ontology_interoperability>._
+_Related to [[[ontology_interoperability]]]._
 
-<wordnet> is sometimes called a "__lexical__ ontology". Its material is words, and the relations are particularly relevant for words. They include
+[[[wordnet]]] is sometimes called a "__lexical__ ontology". Its material is words, and the relations are particularly relevant for words. They include
 synonymy (_big, large_);
 antonymy (_big, small_);
 hyponymy and hypernymy (_chair, furniture_);
@@ -29,13 +29,13 @@ In a multilayer model, the conceptual and the lexical levels are both present in
 Core elements in consumer law and their relations to each other.
 
 #### Concepts
-List of <wordnet> synsets in multiple languages.
+List of [[[wordnet]]] synsets in multiple languages.
 
 <!-- (Technically, the entities on the concept layer are _pointers_ to a list of synsets, like C2 points to `synset-supplier` and `synset-fornitore`. Conceptually this is no different from if C2 were just a list `[supplier, fornitore]`.) -->
 
 #### Lexicons
 
-Monolingual terminologies which are structured into a <wordnet>. The lexical level contains the relations mentioned before in this section (synonymy, antonymy, derivation, …)
+Monolingual terminologies which are structured into a [[[wordnet]]]. The lexical level contains the relations mentioned before in this section (synonymy, antonymy, derivation, …)
 
 <!-- > [judges] link general and abstract legislative statements to their linguistic manifestation -->
 

diff --git a/contract.md b/contract.md
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ tags:
 _Contract_ means slightly different things in different fields. [Camilleri (2017)](https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/53815/1/gupea_2077_53815_1.pdf) lists the following 4.
 
 
-<z:zettels?tag=contract&cf>
+[[z:zettels?tag=contract]]
 
 
 ### Contract in software engineering

diff --git a/contracts_as_code.md b/contracts_as_code.md
@@ -8,14 +8,14 @@ tags:
 # Contracts as code
 
 Broad term that covers
-- <automatic_contract_processing> of legal contracts
-- <smart_contract>
+- [[[automatic_contract_processing]]] of legal contracts
+- [[[smart_contract]]]
 
 ### Terminology
 
 Documenting here what terms are used where. TODO make sense of the terminology.
 
-Used in <computable_contracts>
+Used in [[[computable_contracts]]]
 - “computable contract(ing)”
 - “data-oriented contract(ing)”
 - “contract-as-data”

diff --git a/cyc.md b/cyc.md
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ The main Cyc ontology is commercial, but there is a research license, and no lon
 
 ## Design
 
-Cyc is divided in modules called _microtheories_. A microtheory contains _assertions_ (same as _axioms_ in <sumo>).
+Cyc is divided in modules called _microtheories_. A microtheory contains _assertions_ (same as _axioms_ in [[[sumo]]]).
 
 Assertions within a microtheory need to be consistent with each other, but they can be inconsistent with other microtheories.
 
@@ -44,8 +44,8 @@ Cyc is written in a language called CycL.
 > Default assertions can be overridden by new knowledge, whether it comes from a person using Cyc or is derived by Cyc's own inference engine. Instead of using only a single support or line of reasoning to determine if an assertion is true or false, Cyc's inference engine uses argumentation. This is the process of weighing various arguments, pro and con, to arrive at a truth value for the assertion.
 
 ## Differences between Cyc and SUMO
-Cyc has been around since 1984, and has inspired other ontologies and knowledge bases. <sumo> (released in 2000) is very similar to Cyc.
-Since there is already a long zettel about <sumo>, I'll just list some things in which Cyc is different.
+Cyc has been around since 1984, and has inspired other ontologies and knowledge bases. [[[sumo]]] (released in 2000) is very similar to Cyc.
+Since there is already a long zettel about [[[sumo]]], I'll just list some things in which Cyc is different.
 
 ### Modules and consistency
 

diff --git a/daml.md b/daml.md
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ tags:
 
 [DAML web page](https://daml.com/)
 
-A language for writing <smart_contract>s.
+A language for writing [[[smart_contract]]]s.
 The contract is automatically generated and signed by computers and sent between servers.
 
 For example, one company places an order of T-shirts for a conference. Now it

diff --git a/decision_table.md b/decision_table.md
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ tags:
 A decision table is a way of recording what inputs should result in what
 outputs for a given rule, function, or equivalent.
 
-They are used in the <dmn> standard, as well as in <oracle_intelligent_advisor>.
+They are used in the [[[dmn]]] standard, as well as in [[[oracle_intelligent_advisor]]].
 
 They consist of a set of either rows or columns that represent inputs, and
 another set that represent outputs. Depending on the formalism, `-` can be

diff --git a/default_logic.md b/default_logic.md
@@ -72,8 +72,8 @@ As Lawsky says, default logics can be interpreted into classical logics; the app
 
 ## Examples in real world
 
-- <catala> is based on default logic.
-- <legalruleml> has an option `DefeasibleStrength` for rules that may be overriden.
+- [[[catala]]] is based on default logic.
+- [[[legalruleml]]] has an option `DefeasibleStrength` for rules that may be overriden.
 
 
 

diff --git a/description_logics.md b/description_logics.md
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ tags:
 
 
 _Description logics_ (DL) are a family of logics, often used in ontologies.
-(For more discussion on logics, see <logics_formalisms_languages_applications>)
+(For more discussion on logics, see [[[logics_formalisms_languages_applications]]])
 
 Most DLs are decidable fragments of first-order logic.
 [Krötzsch et al. (2013)](https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4089) explain that there are many DLs, because different applications require different expressivity from the logic.

diff --git a/dmn.md b/dmn.md
@@ -44,12 +44,12 @@ Calvanese et al (2016) [Semantics and Analysis of DMN Decision Tables](https://a
 
 ### Constraint tables
 
-<dmn_constraint_tables_extension> by Deryck et al (2019) allows FEEL expressions
+[[[dmn_constraint_tables_extension]]] by Deryck et al (2019) allows FEEL expressions
 
 ### DMN2RuleML
 
 There is a tool available for converting DMN decision tables into RuleML, on which
-<legalruleml> is based, called [DMN2RuleML](http://stark-cove-78485.herokuapp.com/decision-table).
+[[[legalruleml]]] is based, called [DMN2RuleML](http://stark-cove-78485.herokuapp.com/decision-table).
 
 ## NLG
 

diff --git a/docassemble.md b/docassemble.md
@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ far less powerful.
 
 ## Rules as Code Integration
 
-<blawx> has a module that can be used in a docassemble server to simplify the process of having the Blawx
+[[[blawx]]] has a module that can be used in a docassemble server to simplify the process of having the Blawx
 reasoner answer questions using Docassemble interview data and rules encoded in the Blawx tool.
 
 ## Smart Contract Integrations

diff --git a/embedded_law.md b/embedded_law.md
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ tags:
 
 Architects need to design buildings that (a) don't fall down, and (b) comply with regulations. For purpose (a), they can use [CAD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_design) software, and for purpose (b) they can read law text.
 
-A step forward is <legal_expert_systems>: the architect doesn't need to read pages and pages of legislation or hire a lawyer, but they can use an app to query if their desired door width is legal or not.
+A step forward is [[[legal_expert_systems]]]: the architect doesn't need to read pages and pages of legislation or hire a lawyer, but they can use an app to query if their desired door width is legal or not.
 
 If the CAD program provides legal assistance, that's an example of _embedded law_. The same application will tell you if your design defies the laws of physics or the laws of your country.
 

diff --git a/formal_model.md b/formal_model.md
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ To make it easier to test/reason about {contracts,programs}, we can build a _mod
   - Deontic logic
   - Propositional dynamic logic
 - Lee (1988) [A logic model for electronic contracting](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0167923688900966)
-- Peyton Jones and Eber (2003) _[How to write a financial contract](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.14.7885)_ A combinator library in Haskell for representing <financial_contract>.
+- Peyton Jones and Eber (2003) _[How to write a financial contract](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.14.7885)_ A combinator library in Haskell for representing [[[financial_contract]]].
 - Milosevic et al. (2004) [Business Contract Language](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4085228_On_design_and_implementation_of_a_contract_monitoring_facility) _"A BCL contract consists of a set of roles along with a set of policies […] The roles define the parties involved in a contract, and the policies define the obligations and rights agreed upon by the parties. […] Governatori and Milosevic [36] later seek to formalise BCL by mapping it to a fragment of deontic logic extended with contrary-to-duty obligations. "_
 - Prisacariu, Schneider (2009): [Contract Language](http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~gersch/icail09.pdf) _"a logic for expressing electronic contracts based on a combination of deontic, dynamic, and temporal logics. "_
 - Martínez et al. (2010): [C-O diagrams](http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~gersch/scc2010.pdf)

diff --git a/formal_models_of_legal_text.md b/formal_models_of_legal_text.md
@@ -7,10 +7,10 @@ date: "2020-06-17"
 Premise: we have a contract written by humans for humans, but we want to automate certain interesting tasks.
 
 1. Human-written document in natural language.
-2. Translate the original document into a <formal_model>.
+2. Translate the original document into a [[[formal_model]]].
 3. Do useful things with the model:
-    - <automatic_contract_processing>
-    - <legal_expert_systems>
+    - [[[automatic_contract_processing]]]
+    - [[[legal_expert_systems]]]
 
 
 Contrast with rules as code: step 1 is eliminated, rules are written directly as code.
diff --git a/fundamental_limits.md b/fundamental_limits.md
@@ -28,15 +28,15 @@ would need to know in order to recognize that it was badly designed.
 (For a longer discussion, see [No Vehicles in the Park](https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1623&context=sulr).)
 
 ### Mitigations
-* Susskind suggested limiting the users of <legal_expert_systems> to lawyers, so that
+* Susskind suggested limiting the users of [[[legal_expert_systems]]] to lawyers, so that
   they ought to know themselves if the answers are strange, or relevant
   information has been left out.
 * More realistically, you can limit automation to legal questions about which
   it is unlikely that additional factors will be relevant. This makes strictly-
   interpreted areas of law more attractive.
 * Waivers where the user accepts the risks associated with the possibility that
   the tool fails to consider a relevant factor, and that disavow legal advice.
-* In the <smart_contract> context, the parties can agree to be bound by the
+* In the [[[smart_contract]]] context, the parties can agree to be bound by the
   result from the encoding even if other relevant factors exist. There may be
   limits, such as unconscionability, to how far this can work.
 

diff --git a/generality.md b/generality.md
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ tags:
 
 Event `A` is more general than event `B`, iff every instance of `B` is also an instance of `A`.
 
-Example from <normalized_legal_drafting_query_method>
+Example from [[[normalized_legal_drafting_query_method]]]
 
 * "penalty" is more general than "fine"
 * "penalty" is more general than "imprisonment"

diff --git a/index.md b/index.md
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ On the other hand, real-life situations are often vague and ambiguous. For those
 
 But there are a lot of  situations where that flexibility isn't as crucial, and we want to automate that area. It's like leaving poetry for professional translators and automating instruction manual translation.
 
-<z:zettels?tag=natural_language>
+[[[z:zettels?tag=natural_language]]]
 
 ### Plain text is a suboptimal format
 
@@ -31,20 +31,20 @@ But there are a lot of  situations where that flexibility isn't as crucial, and
 
 ## Approaches to automate/improve
 
-<z:zettels?tag=approach>
+[[[z:zettels?tag=approach]]]
 
 ## Limitations
 
-See <fundamental_limits>
+See [[[fundamental_limits]]]
 
 ## Basics
 
 If you're unsure where to start, start from basics.
-<z:zettels?tag=basics>
+[[[z:zettels?tag=basics]]]
 
 
 ## TODO
 
 You're welcome to revise, add to, split, merge etc. _any entry_ in this zettelkasten. But these ones with the tag `TODO` are particularly unfinished.
 
-<z:zettels?tag=todo&cf>
+[[z:zettels?tag=todo]]
diff --git a/legal_contract.md b/legal_contract.md
@@ -11,4 +11,4 @@ Normative text that describes an agreement between parties.
 
 The parties are bound by law to fulfil the contract. (Even if the contract is [ridiculous](https://www.rt.com/business/man-outsmarts-banks-wins-court-221/).)
 
-Traditionally, a legal contract is drafted by humans. In the glorious future, we'll have <contracts_as_code>.
+Traditionally, a legal contract is drafted by humans. In the glorious future, we'll have [[[contracts_as_code]]].
diff --git a/legal_expert_systems.md b/legal_expert_systems.md
@@ -9,11 +9,11 @@ tags:
 
 Automated legal advice. Replace a lawyer with a program.
 
-Possibly powered by <legal_ontology>.
+Possibly powered by [[[legal_ontology]]].
 
-<z:zettels?tag=expert_system>
+[[[z:zettels?tag=expert_system]]]
 
 ## External links
 
 - Bloomgerg Law: _[Automating Legal Advice: AI and Expert Systems](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/automating-legal-advice-ai-and-expert-systems/)_
-- Example of a legal expert system in Jason Morris: _[“Rules as Code” Can and Should Be Done Without Programmers](https://medium.com/@jason_90344/rules-as-code-can-and-should-be-done-without-programmers-fb3e0f4dafa5#a1b0)_. That system is written using <datalex>.
+- Example of a legal expert system in Jason Morris: _[“Rules as Code” Can and Should Be Done Without Programmers](https://medium.com/@jason_90344/rules-as-code-can-and-should-be-done-without-programmers-fb3e0f4dafa5#a1b0)_. That system is written using [[[datalex]]].
diff --git a/legal_ontology.md b/legal_ontology.md
@@ -9,14 +9,14 @@ tags:
 
 [!["Things defined in Black's Law Dictionary"](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inariksit/cclaw-zettelkasten/master/things.png "Things are the subjects of dominion or property, as distinguished from person. They are distributed into three kinds: (1) Things real or immovable, comprehending lands, tenements, and hereditable: (2) things personal or movable, comprehending goods and chattels: and (3) things mixed. partaking of the characteristics of the trio former")](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Black%27s_Law_Dictionary_(Second_Edition).djvu/1161){#pic .ui .floated .right .medium .image}
 
-Formal decription of the legal domain[^1] in an <ontology>.
+Formal decription of the legal domain[^1] in an [[[ontology]]].
 
 _"Good news: lawyers have been doing it almost as long as Aristotle-and you all think like ontology engineers"_ -- [Burkhard Schafer, ReMeP 2020](https://www.remep.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Burkhart-Schafer_Legal-Ontologies-a-very-short-introduction_ReMeP2020.pptx.pdf)
 
 (See also rest of the slides from ReMeP 2020's panel [Legal Ontologies: Why Are They Relevant In Practice?](https://www.remep.net/materials-2020/))
 
 ## Types of legal ontologies
-For explanation on core, domain and lexical ontology, see <ontology_interoperability>.
+For explanation on core, domain and lexical ontology, see [[[ontology_interoperability]]].
 
 ### Legal core ontologies
 
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ epistemological aspects of law as a control system of social behaviours."_
 * CLO (Core Legal Ontology) (Gangemi et al. 2003) _"organises legal concepts
 and relations on the basis of formal properties defined in the DOLCE+ foundational
 ontology library (Masolo et al. 2002)"_
-* [LKIF-Core](https://github.com/RinkeHoekstra/lkif-core#readme) (Hoekstra et al. 2007), written in <owl>, _"is […] a **library of ontologies** relevant for the legal domain than a monolithic body of definitions. The most abstract concepts are defined in five closely related modules: **top, place, mereology, time and space-time**. LKIF’s top ontology is largely based on the top-level of LRI-Core but has less ontological commitment in the sense that it imposes less restrictions on subclasses of the top categories."_
+* [LKIF-Core](https://github.com/RinkeHoekstra/lkif-core#readme) (Hoekstra et al. 2007), written in [[[owl]]], _"is […] a **library of ontologies** relevant for the legal domain than a monolithic body of definitions. The most abstract concepts are defined in five closely related modules: **top, place, mereology, time and space-time**. LKIF’s top ontology is largely based on the top-level of LRI-Core but has less ontological commitment in the sense that it imposes less restrictions on subclasses of the top categories."_
 <!-- _"is a modular collection of basic legal concepts aimed at supporting the implementation of rule-based knowledge bases for regulatory decision support systems."_  -->
 
 Might be relevant to read/skim Breuker & Hoekstra [Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRI-Core, two core ontologies for law](http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-118/paper2.pdf)
@@ -90,12 +90,12 @@ TODO: where should things like [Lynx: Legal Knowledge Graph](http://www.lynx-pro
 ### Lexical ontologies applied to legal material
 
 For example:
-* [JurWordNet](https://www.fi.muni.cz/gwc2004/proc/111.pdf), where Italian <wordnet> is extended for legal domain.
+* [JurWordNet](https://www.fi.muni.cz/gwc2004/proc/111.pdf), where Italian [[[wordnet]]] is extended for legal domain.
 
 
 ## Logical semantics of legal rules
 
-Many ontology languages are based on <description_logics>, which aren't powerful enough represent the logical semantics required for legal rules. [Mitrović et al. (2019)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338937692_Modeling_Legal_Terminology_in_SUMO) model legal knowledge in <sumo>, which is written in a more expressive language.
+Many ontology languages are based on [[[description_logics]]], which aren't powerful enough represent the logical semantics required for legal rules. [Mitrović et al. (2019)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338937692_Modeling_Legal_Terminology_in_SUMO) model legal knowledge in [[[sumo]]], which is written in a more expressive language.
 
 > It also addresses computational sufficiency by being **written in a higher order logic**, so that we can at least have the capability of automated reasoning about beliefs, intent, temporal qualification, modality and many other issues that cannot be captured explicitly in a less expressive logic.