This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-25 14:27; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Provenance Draft

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 126: Appropriate Notification And Review Of Another Engineer's Work

28 entities 7 actions 2 events 8 causal chains 10 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 9 sequenced markers
Reviewing Engineer Retention Before Engineer A's contract expires
Engagement Acceptance Without Clarification At the time of retention, before the review
Design Concerns Arising Before Engineer A's contract expires, prior to Engineer B's retention
Contract Non-Renewal Notice After several years of the relationship
Non-Disclosure Instruction Prior to Engineer B's review
Design Review Performance The week following retention
Disclosure to Reviewed Engineer Following the review, one week after retention
Design Engineer Retention Several weeks later, after Engineer A's agreement expired
Contract Expiration Several weeks after Engineer B's disclosure to Engineer A
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 10 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
Engineer A's service as design engineer for the franchiser (several years) time:intervalBefore franchiser's notice of intent not to renew the contract
franchiser's retention of Engineer B for review time:intervalDuring Engineer A's contract period (after notice, before expiration)
franchiser's instruction to Engineer B not to disclose the relationship time:intervalBefore Engineer B's review of the design information
Engineer B's retention and instruction time:intervalBefore Engineer B's review of design information
Engineer B's review of design information time:intervalMeets Engineer B's notification to Engineer A of the relationship and preliminary results
Engineer B's notification to Engineer A time:intervalBefore expiration of Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser
expiration of Engineer A's agreement time:intervalMeets franchiser's formal retention of Engineer B as design engineer
events of the case (retention, review, disclosure, contract expiration) time:intervalBefore Board's retrospective ethical evaluation in the Discussion
strict Code provisions regarding relations among engineers time:intervalBefore modified Code provisions reflecting client needs
establishment of Engineer B's relationship with the client and the review time:intervalBefore required disclosure under Section III.8.a (within a reasonable period)
Extracted Actions (7)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: The franchiser decided to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provided notice of its intent not to renew the contract with Engineer A's firm.

Temporal Marker: After several years of the relationship instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Contract Termination Pending State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: End the design services relationship with Engineer A

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Potential disruption to pending design work during transition
Required Capabilities:
Business management judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Business management judgment
  • initiates: Contract Termination Pending State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The franchiser decided to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provided notice of its intent not to renew the contract with Engineer A's firm.
  • hasAgent content: Franchiser
  • temporalMarker content: After several years of the relationship
  • eventRoleContext content: Client
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: End the design services relationship with Engineer A
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Potential disruption to pending design work during transition
  • textReferences content: the franchiser decides to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provides Engineer A of notice of its intent not to renew its contract with Engineer A's firm
  • 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/126#",
    "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/126#Action_Contract_Non-Renewal_Notice",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.635105+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The franchiser decided to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provided notice of its intent not to renew the contract with Engineer A\u0027s firm.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Client",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential disruption to pending design work during transition"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Franchiser",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Contract Termination Pending State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "End the design services relationship with Engineer A",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Business management judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After several years of the relationship",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "the franchiser decides to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provides Engineer A of notice of its intent not to renew its contract with Engineer A\u0027s firm"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Contract Non-Renewal Notice"
}

Description: Before Engineer A's contract expired, the franchiser began discussions with Engineer B and retained him to immediately review pending design concerns at several franchise facilities.

Temporal Marker: Before Engineer A's contract expires instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Concurrent Engineer Relationships State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Maintain continuity of engineering services during the transition

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Engineer B would be reviewing Engineer A's work while Engineer A's relationship with the client was still active
Required Capabilities:
Business management judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Business management judgment
  • initiates: Concurrent Engineer Relationships State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Before Engineer A's contract expired, the franchiser began discussions with Engineer B and retained him to immediately review pending design concerns at several franchise facilities.
  • hasAgent content: Franchiser
  • temporalMarker content: Before Engineer A's contract expires
  • eventRoleContext content: Client
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Maintain continuity of engineering services during the transition
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Engineer B would be reviewing Engineer A's work while Engineer A's relationship with the client was still active
  • textReferences content: In order to maintain continuity and before the contract expires, the franchiser begins discussions with Engineer B and retains Engineer B to provide immediate review of design concerns that are pending in connection with the design of several franchise facilities throughout the US.
  • 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/126#",
    "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/126#Action_Reviewing_Engineer_Retention",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.635253+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Before Engineer A\u0027s contract expired, the franchiser began discussions with Engineer B and retained him to immediately review pending design concerns at several franchise facilities.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Client",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Engineer B would be reviewing Engineer A\u0027s work while Engineer A\u0027s relationship with the client was still active"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Franchiser",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Concurrent Engineer Relationships State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Maintain continuity of engineering services during the transition",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Business management judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Before Engineer A\u0027s contract expires",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "In order to maintain continuity and before the contract expires, the franchiser begins discussions with Engineer B and retains Engineer B to provide immediate review of design concerns that are pending in connection with the design of several franchise facilities throughout the US."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Reviewing Engineer Retention"
}

Description: Prior to the review, the franchiser specifically instructed Engineer B not to disclose his relationship with the franchiser to Engineer A.

Temporal Marker: Prior to Engineer B's review instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Client Confidentiality Instruction State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Keep the retention of Engineer B confidential from Engineer A

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Placing Engineer B in tension with his notification duty to a reviewed engineer
Required Capabilities:
Client relationship management
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Client relationship management
  • initiates: Client Confidentiality Instruction State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Prior to the review, the franchiser specifically instructed Engineer B not to disclose his relationship with the franchiser to Engineer A.
  • hasAgent content: Franchiser
  • temporalMarker content: Prior to Engineer B's review
  • eventRoleContext content: Client
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Keep the retention of Engineer B confidential from Engineer A
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Placing Engineer B in tension with his notification duty to a reviewed engineer
  • textReferences content: Prior to the review, franchiser specifically tells Engineer B not to disclose to Engineer A, Engineer B's relationship with franchiser.
  • 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/126#",
    "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/126#Action_Non-Disclosure_Instruction",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.635296+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Prior to the review, the franchiser specifically instructed Engineer B not to disclose his relationship with the franchiser to Engineer A.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Client",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Placing Engineer B in tension with his notification duty to a reviewed engineer"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Franchiser",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Client Confidentiality Instruction State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Keep the retention of Engineer B confidential from Engineer A",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Client relationship management"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Prior to Engineer B\u0027s review",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Prior to the review, franchiser specifically tells Engineer B not to disclose to Engineer A, Engineer B\u0027s relationship with franchiser."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Non-Disclosure Instruction"
}

Description: Engineer B took the review project without first exploring why the client wanted him not to disclose his relationship with the client, an omission the Board criticized.

Temporal Marker: At the time of retention, before the review instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Unclarified Non-Disclosure Condition State

Mental State: deliberate but insufficiently deliberative

Intended Outcome: Secure the engagement and begin the immediate review for the client

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Accepting an undisclosed relationship condition without understanding its purpose
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (1)
  • Obligation to clarify the client's non-disclosure rationale before accepting
Guided By Principles:
  • Faithful Agent and Trustee
Required Capabilities:
Professional judgment Ethical due diligence
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Obligation to clarify the client's non-disclosure rationale before accepting
  • guidedByPrinciple: Faithful Agent and Trustee
  • requiresCapability: Professional judgment; Ethical due diligence
  • initiates: Unclarified Non-Disclosure Condition State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer B took the review project without first exploring why the client wanted him not to disclose his relationship with the client, an omission the Board criticized.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer B
  • temporalMarker content: At the time of retention, before the review
  • eventRoleContext content: Reviewing Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate but insufficiently deliberative
  • intendedOutcome content: Secure the engagement and begin the immediate review for the client
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Accepting an undisclosed relationship condition without understanding its purpose
  • textReferences content: we are troubled by the fact that Engineer B took this project without first exploring the reason why the client wanted Engineer B not to disclose his relationship with the client
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#",
    "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/126#Action_Engagement_Acceptance_Without_Clarification",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.635327+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B took the review project without first exploring why the client wanted him not to disclose his relationship with the client, an omission the Board criticized.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Reviewing Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Accepting an undisclosed relationship condition without understanding its purpose"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Faithful Agent and Trustee"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate but insufficiently deliberative",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Unclarified Non-Disclosure Condition State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Secure the engagement and begin the immediate review for the client",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment",
    "Ethical due diligence"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the time of retention, before the review",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "we are troubled by the fact that Engineer B took this project without first exploring the reason why the client wanted Engineer B not to disclose his relationship with the client"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Obligation to clarify the client\u0027s non-disclosure rationale before accepting"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Engagement Acceptance Without Clarification"
}

Description: Engineer B reviewed the pending design information for the franchiser the week following his retention.

Temporal Marker: The week following retention interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Review Completed State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Provide the client with an immediate review of pending design concerns

Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee for the client
Guided By Principles:
  • Faithful Agent and Trustee
Required Capabilities:
Engineering design review competence
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Faithful Agent and Trustee
  • requiresCapability: Engineering design review competence
  • initiates: Review Completed State
  • raisesObligation: Obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee for the client
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer B reviewed the pending design information for the franchiser the week following his retention.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer B
  • temporalMarker content: The week following retention
  • eventRoleContext content: Reviewing Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Provide the client with an immediate review of pending design concerns
  • textReferences content: Engineer B reviews the design information the following week
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 6
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#",
    "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/126#Action_Design_Review_Performance",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.635358+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B reviewed the pending design information for the franchiser the week following his retention.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Reviewing Engineer",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Faithful Agent and Trustee"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Review Completed State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide the client with an immediate review of pending design concerns",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee for the client"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Engineering design review competence"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "The week following retention",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer B reviews the design information the following week"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Design Review Performance"
}

Description: Following his review and despite the client's instruction, Engineer B notified Engineer A of his relationship with the franchiser and the preliminary results of his review. The Board found this disclosure unethical.

Temporal Marker: Following the review, one week after retention instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Client Instruction Breached State
  • Engineer A Informed State
Terminates (1)
  • Client Confidentiality Instruction State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Give Engineer A notice of the review of his work and an opportunity to respond, consistent with the duty owed to a reviewed engineer

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Contravening the client's explicit non-disclosure instruction
  • Neglecting the interests of the client
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (2)
  • Obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee for the client
  • Obligation not to notify Engineer A after the client's instruction
Guided By Principles:
  • Notice to Reviewed Engineer
Required Capabilities:
Professional judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee for the client; Obligation not to notify Engineer A after the client's instruction
  • guidedByPrinciple: Notice to Reviewed Engineer
  • requiresCapability: Professional judgment
  • initiates: Client Instruction Breached State; Engineer A Informed State
  • terminates: Client Confidentiality Instruction State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Following his review and despite the client's instruction, Engineer B notified Engineer A of his relationship with the franchiser and the preliminary results of his review. The Board found this disclosure unethical.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer B
  • temporalMarker content: Following the review, one week after retention
  • eventRoleContext content: Reviewing Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Give Engineer A notice of the review of his work and an opportunity to respond, consistent with the duty owed to a reviewed engineer
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Contravening the client's explicit non-disclosure instruction; Neglecting the interests of the client
  • textReferences content: Nevertheless, Engineer B reviews the design information the following week and following his review, notifies Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser and the preliminary results of his review.; we are persuaded that Engineer B acted unethically in notifying Engineer A of Engineer B's relationship with the client
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 7
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#",
    "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/126#Action_Disclosure_to_Reviewed_Engineer",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.635973+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Following his review and despite the client\u0027s instruction, Engineer B notified Engineer A of his relationship with the franchiser and the preliminary results of his review. The Board found this disclosure unethical.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Reviewing Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Contravening the client\u0027s explicit non-disclosure instruction",
    "Neglecting the interests of the client"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Notice to Reviewed Engineer"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Client Instruction Breached State",
    "Engineer A Informed State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Give Engineer A notice of the review of his work and an opportunity to respond, consistent with the duty owed to a reviewed engineer",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following the review, one week after retention",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Client Confidentiality Instruction State"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Nevertheless, Engineer B reviews the design information the following week and following his review, notifies Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser and the preliminary results of his review.",
    "we are persuaded that Engineer B acted unethically in notifying Engineer A of Engineer B\u0027s relationship with the client"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee for the client",
    "Obligation not to notify Engineer A after the client\u0027s instruction"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Disclosure to Reviewed Engineer"
}

Description: Several weeks later, after Engineer A's agreement expired, the franchiser retained Engineer B as its design engineer.

Temporal Marker: Several weeks later, after Engineer A's agreement expired instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Engineer B Design Engineer State
Terminates (1)
  • Concurrent Engineer Relationships State

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Establish Engineer B as the ongoing design engineer for the franchise chain

Required Capabilities:
Business management judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Business management judgment
  • initiates: Engineer B Design Engineer State
  • terminates: Concurrent Engineer Relationships State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Several weeks later, after Engineer A's agreement expired, the franchiser retained Engineer B as its design engineer.
  • hasAgent content: Franchiser
  • temporalMarker content: Several weeks later, after Engineer A's agreement expired
  • eventRoleContext content: Client
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Establish Engineer B as the ongoing design engineer for the franchise chain
  • textReferences content: Several weeks later, Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires and the franchiser retains Engineer B as its design engineer.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 9
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#",
    "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/126#Action_Design_Engineer_Retention",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.636023+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Several weeks later, after Engineer A\u0027s agreement expired, the franchiser retained Engineer B as its design engineer.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Client",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Franchiser",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Engineer B Design Engineer State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Establish Engineer B as the ongoing design engineer for the franchise chain",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Business management judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Several weeks later, after Engineer A\u0027s agreement expired",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 9,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Concurrent Engineer Relationships State"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Several weeks later, Engineer A\u0027s agreement with the franchiser expires and the franchiser retains Engineer B as its design engineer."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Design Engineer Retention"
}
Extracted Events (2)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Design concerns become pending in connection with the design of several franchise facilities across the United States, creating the condition that prompts the franchiser to seek an immediate review by Engineer B before Engineer A's contract expires.

Temporal Marker: Before Engineer A's contract expires, prior to Engineer B's retention interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Pending Design Concerns
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Pending Design Concerns
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Design concerns become pending in connection with the design of several franchise facilities across the United States, creating the condition that prompts the franchiser to seek an immediate review by Engineer B before Engineer A's contract expires.
  • temporalMarker content: Before Engineer A's contract expires, prior to Engineer B's retention
  • textReferences content: retains Engineer B to provide immediate review of design concerns that are pending in connection with the design of several franchise facilities throughout the US
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • confidence assessment: 0.65
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#",
    "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/126#Event_Design_Concerns_Arising",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.636152+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.65",
  "proeth:description": "Design concerns become pending in connection with the design of several franchise facilities across the United States, creating the condition that prompts the franchiser to seek an immediate review by Engineer B before Engineer A\u0027s contract expires.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Pending Design Concerns"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Before Engineer A\u0027s contract expires, prior to Engineer B\u0027s retention",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "retains Engineer B to provide immediate review of design concerns that are pending in connection with the design of several franchise facilities throughout the US"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Design Concerns Arising"
}

Description: Engineer A's design services agreement with the franchiser expires by its own terms following the earlier notice of non-renewal, ending the original engineer-client relationship and clearing the way for the franchiser to formally retain Engineer B as design engineer.

Temporal Marker: Several weeks after Engineer B's disclosure to Engineer A instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Original Relationship Terminated
Terminates (1)
  • Engineer A Client Relationship Active

Caused By Action: Action_Contract_Non-Renewal_Notice

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#Action_Contract_Non-Renewal_Notice
  • initiates: Original Relationship Terminated
  • terminates: Engineer A Client Relationship Active
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A's design services agreement with the franchiser expires by its own terms following the earlier notice of non-renewal, ending the original engineer-client relationship and clearing the way for the franchiser to formally retain Engineer B as design engineer.
  • temporalMarker content: Several weeks after Engineer B's disclosure to Engineer A
  • textReferences content: Several weeks later, Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires and the franchiser retains Engineer B as its design engineer.; provides Engineer A of notice of its intent not to renew its contract with Engineer A's firm
  • eventType content: automatic
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#",
    "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/126#Event_Contract_Expiration",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.636118+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#Action_Contract_Non-Renewal_Notice",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s design services agreement with the franchiser expires by its own terms following the earlier notice of non-renewal, ending the original engineer-client relationship and clearing the way for the franchiser to formally retain Engineer B as design engineer.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Original Relationship Terminated"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Several weeks after Engineer B\u0027s disclosure to Engineer A",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Engineer A Client Relationship Active"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Several weeks later, Engineer A\u0027s agreement with the franchiser expires and the franchiser retains Engineer B as its design engineer.",
    "provides Engineer A of notice of its intent not to renew its contract with Engineer A\u0027s firm"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Contract Expiration"
}
Causal Chains (8)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: After several years, the franchiser decides to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provides Engineer A of notice of its intent not to renew its contract with Engineer A's firm. In order to maintain continuity and before the contract expires, the franchiser begins discussions with Engineer B and retains Engineer B

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Franchiser's decision to end the relationship with Engineer A
  • Franchiser's ongoing need for engineering design services
  • Availability of Engineer B as a replacement engineer
Sufficient Factors:
  • Decision to terminate Engineer A combined with the need for continuity of design services and pending design concerns
Counterfactual Test: Without the decision not to renew Engineer A's contract, the franchiser would have had no reason to retain a second engineer to maintain continuity
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Franchiser
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Contract Non-Renewal Notice
    Franchiser decides to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provides notice of intent not to renew
  2. Continuity Need Recognition
    Franchiser recognizes the need to maintain continuity of engineering services before the contract expires
  3. Reviewing Engineer Retention
    Franchiser begins discussions with Engineer B and retains him for immediate review of pending design concerns
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Contract Non-Renewal Notice
  • effect: Reviewing Engineer Retention
  • responsibleAgent: Franchiser
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: After several years, the franchiser decides to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provides Engineer A of notice of its intent not to renew its contract with Engineer A's firm. In order to maintain continuity and before the contract expires, the franchiser begins discussions with Engineer B and retains Engineer B
  • necessaryFactors content: Franchiser's decision to end the relationship with Engineer A; Franchiser's ongoing need for engineering design services; Availability of Engineer B as a replacement engineer
  • sufficientFactors content: Decision to terminate Engineer A combined with the need for continuity of design services and pending design concerns
  • counterfactual content: Without the decision not to renew Engineer A's contract, the franchiser would have had no reason to retain a second engineer to maintain continuity
  • agentKnowledge content: Franchiser knew Engineer A's contract had not yet expired and that pending design concerns required immediate review
  • interveningFactors content: Pending design concerns at several franchise facilities
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Contract Non-Renewal Notice', 'proeth:description': 'Franchiser decides to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provides notice of intent not to renew'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Continuity Need Recognition', 'proeth:description': 'Franchiser recognizes the need to maintain continuity of engineering services before the contract expires'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Reviewing Engineer Retention', 'proeth:description': 'Franchiser begins discussions with Engineer B and retains him for immediate review of pending design concerns'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#",
    "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/126#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.636214+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Franchiser knew Engineer A\u0027s contract had not yet expired and that pending design concerns required immediate review",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "After several years, the franchiser decides to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provides Engineer A of notice of its intent not to renew its contract with Engineer A\u0027s firm. In order to maintain continuity and before the contract expires, the franchiser begins discussions with Engineer B and retains Engineer B",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Franchiser decides to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provides notice of intent not to renew",
      "proeth:element": "Contract Non-Renewal Notice",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Franchiser recognizes the need to maintain continuity of engineering services before the contract expires",
      "proeth:element": "Continuity Need Recognition",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Franchiser begins discussions with Engineer B and retains him for immediate review of pending design concerns",
      "proeth:element": "Reviewing Engineer Retention",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Contract Non-Renewal Notice",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the decision not to renew Engineer A\u0027s contract, the franchiser would have had no reason to retain a second engineer to maintain continuity",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Reviewing Engineer Retention",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Pending design concerns at several franchise facilities"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Franchiser\u0027s decision to end the relationship with Engineer A",
    "Franchiser\u0027s ongoing need for engineering design services",
    "Availability of Engineer B as a replacement engineer"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Franchiser",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Decision to terminate Engineer A combined with the need for continuity of design services and pending design concerns"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: the franchiser begins discussions with Engineer B and retains Engineer B to provide immediate review of design concerns that are pending in connection with the design of several franchise facilities throughout the US

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Existence of pending design concerns at several franchise facilities
  • Franchiser's judgment that the concerns required immediate review
  • Engineer B's willingness to be retained
Sufficient Factors:
  • Pending design concerns plus the franchiser's decision to seek review from an engineer other than Engineer A
Counterfactual Test: Without pending design concerns, there would have been no immediate work for which Engineer B needed to be retained before Engineer A's contract expired
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Franchiser
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Design Concerns Arising
    Design concerns become pending in connection with several franchise facilities across the US
  2. Franchiser Assessment
    Franchiser determines the concerns require immediate review despite Engineer A's contract not yet having expired
  3. Reviewing Engineer Retention
    Franchiser retains Engineer B to provide immediate review of the pending design concerns
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Design Concerns Arising
  • effect: Reviewing Engineer Retention
  • responsibleAgent: Franchiser
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: the franchiser begins discussions with Engineer B and retains Engineer B to provide immediate review of design concerns that are pending in connection with the design of several franchise facilities throughout the US
  • necessaryFactors content: Existence of pending design concerns at several franchise facilities; Franchiser's judgment that the concerns required immediate review; Engineer B's willingness to be retained
  • sufficientFactors content: Pending design concerns plus the franchiser's decision to seek review from an engineer other than Engineer A
  • counterfactual content: Without pending design concerns, there would have been no immediate work for which Engineer B needed to be retained before Engineer A's contract expired
  • agentKnowledge content: Franchiser knew the design concerns involved work originally performed under Engineer A's engagement
  • interveningFactors content: Franchiser's prior decision not to renew Engineer A's contract
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Design Concerns Arising', 'proeth:description': 'Design concerns become pending in connection with several franchise facilities across the US'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Franchiser Assessment', 'proeth:description': "Franchiser determines the concerns require immediate review despite Engineer A's contract not yet having expired"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Reviewing Engineer Retention', 'proeth:description': 'Franchiser retains Engineer B to provide immediate review of the pending design concerns'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#",
    "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/126#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.636244+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Franchiser knew the design concerns involved work originally performed under Engineer A\u0027s engagement",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "the franchiser begins discussions with Engineer B and retains Engineer B to provide immediate review of design concerns that are pending in connection with the design of several franchise facilities throughout the US",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Design concerns become pending in connection with several franchise facilities across the US",
      "proeth:element": "Design Concerns Arising",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Franchiser determines the concerns require immediate review despite Engineer A\u0027s contract not yet having expired",
      "proeth:element": "Franchiser Assessment",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Franchiser retains Engineer B to provide immediate review of the pending design concerns",
      "proeth:element": "Reviewing Engineer Retention",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Design Concerns Arising",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without pending design concerns, there would have been no immediate work for which Engineer B needed to be retained before Engineer A\u0027s contract expired",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Reviewing Engineer Retention",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Franchiser\u0027s prior decision not to renew Engineer A\u0027s contract"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Existence of pending design concerns at several franchise facilities",
    "Franchiser\u0027s judgment that the concerns required immediate review",
    "Engineer B\u0027s willingness to be retained"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Franchiser",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Pending design concerns plus the franchiser\u0027s decision to seek review from an engineer other than Engineer A"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Prior to the review, franchiser specifically tells Engineer B not to disclose to Engineer A, Engineer B's relationship with franchiser.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Existence of a retention relationship between franchiser and Engineer B
  • Engineer A's contract still being in effect at the time of retention
  • Franchiser's desire to keep the new relationship confidential from Engineer A
Sufficient Factors:
  • The overlap between Engineer A's active contract and Engineer B's new engagement, combined with the franchiser's confidentiality preference
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer B not been retained while Engineer A's contract was still active, there would have been no relationship to conceal and no instruction issued
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Franchiser
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Reviewing Engineer Retention
    Franchiser retains Engineer B while Engineer A's contract is still in effect
  2. Confidentiality Concern
    Franchiser wishes to prevent Engineer A from learning of the new relationship before the contract expires
  3. Non-Disclosure Instruction
    Franchiser specifically instructs Engineer B not to disclose the relationship to Engineer A
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Reviewing Engineer Retention
  • effect: Non-Disclosure Instruction
  • responsibleAgent: Franchiser
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Prior to the review, franchiser specifically tells Engineer B not to disclose to Engineer A, Engineer B's relationship with franchiser.
  • necessaryFactors content: Existence of a retention relationship between franchiser and Engineer B; Engineer A's contract still being in effect at the time of retention; Franchiser's desire to keep the new relationship confidential from Engineer A
  • sufficientFactors content: The overlap between Engineer A's active contract and Engineer B's new engagement, combined with the franchiser's confidentiality preference
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer B not been retained while Engineer A's contract was still active, there would have been no relationship to conceal and no instruction issued
  • agentKnowledge content: Franchiser knew Engineer B would be reviewing work connected to Engineer A's engagement and chose to conceal the relationship
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Reviewing Engineer Retention', 'proeth:description': "Franchiser retains Engineer B while Engineer A's contract is still in effect"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Confidentiality Concern', 'proeth:description': 'Franchiser wishes to prevent Engineer A from learning of the new relationship before the contract expires'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Non-Disclosure Instruction', 'proeth:description': 'Franchiser specifically instructs Engineer B not to disclose the relationship to Engineer A'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#",
    "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/126#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.636267+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Franchiser knew Engineer B would be reviewing work connected to Engineer A\u0027s engagement and chose to conceal the relationship",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Prior to the review, franchiser specifically tells Engineer B not to disclose to Engineer A, Engineer B\u0027s relationship with franchiser.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Franchiser retains Engineer B while Engineer A\u0027s contract is still in effect",
      "proeth:element": "Reviewing Engineer Retention",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Franchiser wishes to prevent Engineer A from learning of the new relationship before the contract expires",
      "proeth:element": "Confidentiality Concern",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Franchiser specifically instructs Engineer B not to disclose the relationship to Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Non-Disclosure Instruction",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Reviewing Engineer Retention",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer B not been retained while Engineer A\u0027s contract was still active, there would have been no relationship to conceal and no instruction issued",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Non-Disclosure Instruction",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Existence of a retention relationship between franchiser and Engineer B",
    "Engineer A\u0027s contract still being in effect at the time of retention",
    "Franchiser\u0027s desire to keep the new relationship confidential from Engineer A"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Franchiser",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The overlap between Engineer A\u0027s active contract and Engineer B\u0027s new engagement, combined with the franchiser\u0027s confidentiality preference"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Finally, we are troubled by the fact that Engineer B took this project without first exploring the reason why the client wanted Engineer B not to disclose his relationship with the client. We believe this issue should first be clarified.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Franchiser's specific instruction not to disclose the relationship
  • Engineer B's decision to proceed without questioning the instruction
  • Absence of any inquiry by Engineer B into the client's motives
Sufficient Factors:
  • Receipt of the non-disclosure instruction combined with Engineer B's failure to seek clarification before accepting the engagement
Counterfactual Test: Without the non-disclosure instruction, there would have been nothing to clarify; the ethically problematic unquestioned acceptance would not exist
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Non-Disclosure Instruction
    Franchiser tells Engineer B not to disclose the relationship to Engineer A
  2. Engagement Acceptance Without Clarification
    Engineer B accepts the review project without first exploring the reason for the non-disclosure demand
  3. Latent Ethical Conflict
    Engineer B is now bound by conflicting duties: notice to Engineer A under Section III.8.a. versus faithful agency under Section II.4
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Non-Disclosure Instruction
  • effect: Engagement Acceptance Without Clarification
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Finally, we are troubled by the fact that Engineer B took this project without first exploring the reason why the client wanted Engineer B not to disclose his relationship with the client. We believe this issue should first be clarified.
  • necessaryFactors content: Franchiser's specific instruction not to disclose the relationship; Engineer B's decision to proceed without questioning the instruction; Absence of any inquiry by Engineer B into the client's motives
  • sufficientFactors content: Receipt of the non-disclosure instruction combined with Engineer B's failure to seek clarification before accepting the engagement
  • counterfactual content: Without the non-disclosure instruction, there would have been nothing to clarify; the ethically problematic unquestioned acceptance would not exist
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer B knew the client wanted the relationship concealed from Engineer A but did not know or explore the reason
  • interveningFactors content: Client's stated desire for confidentiality; Franchiser's need for immediate review
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Non-Disclosure Instruction', 'proeth:description': 'Franchiser tells Engineer B not to disclose the relationship to Engineer A'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Engagement Acceptance Without Clarification', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B accepts the review project without first exploring the reason for the non-disclosure demand'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Latent Ethical Conflict', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B is now bound by conflicting duties: notice to Engineer A under Section III.8.a. versus faithful agency under Section II.4'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#",
    "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/126#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.636290+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer B knew the client wanted the relationship concealed from Engineer A but did not know or explore the reason",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Finally, we are troubled by the fact that Engineer B took this project without first exploring the reason why the client wanted Engineer B not to disclose his relationship with the client. We believe this issue should first be clarified.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Franchiser tells Engineer B not to disclose the relationship to Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Non-Disclosure Instruction",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B accepts the review project without first exploring the reason for the non-disclosure demand",
      "proeth:element": "Engagement Acceptance Without Clarification",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B is now bound by conflicting duties: notice to Engineer A under Section III.8.a. versus faithful agency under Section II.4",
      "proeth:element": "Latent Ethical Conflict",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Non-Disclosure Instruction",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the non-disclosure instruction, there would have been nothing to clarify; the ethically problematic unquestioned acceptance would not exist",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Engagement Acceptance Without Clarification",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Client\u0027s stated desire for confidentiality",
    "Franchiser\u0027s need for immediate review"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Franchiser\u0027s specific instruction not to disclose the relationship",
    "Engineer B\u0027s decision to proceed without questioning the instruction",
    "Absence of any inquiry by Engineer B into the client\u0027s motives"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Receipt of the non-disclosure instruction combined with Engineer B\u0027s failure to seek clarification before accepting the engagement"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Nevertheless, Engineer B reviews the design information the following week

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer B's retention by the franchiser
  • Availability of the pending design information for review
  • Engineer B's acceptance of the engagement
Sufficient Factors:
  • Retention for the express purpose of immediate review plus pending design concerns awaiting evaluation
Counterfactual Test: Without being retained by the franchiser, Engineer B would have had no authority or occasion to review the design information
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Reviewing Engineer Retention
    Franchiser retains Engineer B to provide immediate review of pending design concerns
  2. Engagement Acceptance Without Clarification
    Engineer B takes the project without questioning the non-disclosure condition
  3. Design Review Performance
    Engineer B reviews the design information the following week
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Reviewing Engineer Retention
  • effect: Design Review Performance
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Nevertheless, Engineer B reviews the design information the following week
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer B's retention by the franchiser; Availability of the pending design information for review; Engineer B's acceptance of the engagement
  • sufficientFactors content: Retention for the express purpose of immediate review plus pending design concerns awaiting evaluation
  • counterfactual content: Without being retained by the franchiser, Engineer B would have had no authority or occasion to review the design information
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer B knew he was reviewing work connected to Engineer A's engagement and that the client had forbidden disclosure
  • interveningFactors content: Franchiser's demand for immediate review
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Reviewing Engineer Retention', 'proeth:description': 'Franchiser retains Engineer B to provide immediate review of pending design concerns'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Engagement Acceptance Without Clarification', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B takes the project without questioning the non-disclosure condition'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Design Review Performance', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B reviews the design information the following week'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#",
    "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/126#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.636309+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer B knew he was reviewing work connected to Engineer A\u0027s engagement and that the client had forbidden disclosure",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Nevertheless, Engineer B reviews the design information the following week",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Franchiser retains Engineer B to provide immediate review of pending design concerns",
      "proeth:element": "Reviewing Engineer Retention",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B takes the project without questioning the non-disclosure condition",
      "proeth:element": "Engagement Acceptance Without Clarification",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B reviews the design information the following week",
      "proeth:element": "Design Review Performance",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Reviewing Engineer Retention",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without being retained by the franchiser, Engineer B would have had no authority or occasion to review the design information",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Design Review Performance",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Franchiser\u0027s demand for immediate review"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s retention by the franchiser",
    "Availability of the pending design information for review",
    "Engineer B\u0027s acceptance of the engagement"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Retention for the express purpose of immediate review plus pending design concerns awaiting evaluation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Nevertheless, Engineer B reviews the design information the following week and following his review, notifies Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser and the preliminary results of his review.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Completion of Engineer B's review generating preliminary results
  • Engineer B's sense of obligation under Section III.8.a. to notify the reviewed engineer
  • Engineer B's decision to disregard the client's non-disclosure instruction
Sufficient Factors:
  • Completed review producing preliminary results combined with Engineer B's choice to prioritize notice to Engineer A over the client's instruction
Counterfactual Test: Without the review having been performed, there would have been no preliminary results to disclose and the disclosure as it occurred would not have taken place; however, Engineer B could still have disclosed the relationship alone
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Design Review Performance
    Engineer B reviews the pending design information and forms preliminary results
  2. Perceived Notice Obligation
    Engineer B weighs the Section III.8.a. duty to notify the engineer whose work is being reviewed
  3. Disclosure to Reviewed Engineer
    Engineer B notifies Engineer A of his relationship with the franchiser and the preliminary results, despite the client's instruction
  4. Ethical Breach Finding
    The Board concludes Engineer B acted unethically because his disclosure constituted a neglect of the interests of his client
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Design Review Performance
  • effect: Disclosure to Reviewed Engineer
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Nevertheless, Engineer B reviews the design information the following week and following his review, notifies Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser and the preliminary results of his review.
  • necessaryFactors content: Completion of Engineer B's review generating preliminary results; Engineer B's sense of obligation under Section III.8.a. to notify the reviewed engineer; Engineer B's decision to disregard the client's non-disclosure instruction
  • sufficientFactors content: Completed review producing preliminary results combined with Engineer B's choice to prioritize notice to Engineer A over the client's instruction
  • counterfactual content: Without the review having been performed, there would have been no preliminary results to disclose and the disclosure as it occurred would not have taken place; however, Engineer B could still have disclosed the relationship alone
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer B knew the client had specifically instructed him not to disclose the relationship to Engineer A, yet disclosed anyway
  • interveningFactors content: Code Section III.8.a.'s notice provision creating a perceived duty to notify Engineer A
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Design Review Performance', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B reviews the pending design information and forms preliminary results'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Perceived Notice Obligation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B weighs the Section III.8.a. duty to notify the engineer whose work is being reviewed'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Disclosure to Reviewed Engineer', 'proeth:description': "Engineer B notifies Engineer A of his relationship with the franchiser and the preliminary results, despite the client's instruction"}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Ethical Breach Finding', 'proeth:description': 'The Board concludes Engineer B acted unethically because his disclosure constituted a neglect of the interests of his client'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#",
    "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/126#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.636328+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer B knew the client had specifically instructed him not to disclose the relationship to Engineer A, yet disclosed anyway",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Nevertheless, Engineer B reviews the design information the following week and following his review, notifies Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser and the preliminary results of his review.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B reviews the pending design information and forms preliminary results",
      "proeth:element": "Design Review Performance",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B weighs the Section III.8.a. duty to notify the engineer whose work is being reviewed",
      "proeth:element": "Perceived Notice Obligation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B notifies Engineer A of his relationship with the franchiser and the preliminary results, despite the client\u0027s instruction",
      "proeth:element": "Disclosure to Reviewed Engineer",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The Board concludes Engineer B acted unethically because his disclosure constituted a neglect of the interests of his client",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Breach Finding",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Design Review Performance",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the review having been performed, there would have been no preliminary results to disclose and the disclosure as it occurred would not have taken place; however, Engineer B could still have disclosed the relationship alone",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Disclosure to Reviewed Engineer",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Code Section III.8.a.\u0027s notice provision creating a perceived duty to notify Engineer A"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Completion of Engineer B\u0027s review generating preliminary results",
    "Engineer B\u0027s sense of obligation under Section III.8.a. to notify the reviewed engineer",
    "Engineer B\u0027s decision to disregard the client\u0027s non-disclosure instruction"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Completed review producing preliminary results combined with Engineer B\u0027s choice to prioritize notice to Engineer A over the client\u0027s instruction"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: the franchiser decides to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provides Engineer A of notice of its intent not to renew its contract with Engineer A's firm ... Several weeks later, Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Franchiser's decision not to renew the contract
  • Passage of the remaining contract term
  • Absence of any renegotiation or renewal
Sufficient Factors:
  • The non-renewal notice combined with the contract reaching the end of its term
Counterfactual Test: Had the franchiser renewed the contract, the agreement would not have terminated at expiration; the non-renewal decision ensured the relationship ended
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Franchiser
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Contract Non-Renewal Notice
    Franchiser provides Engineer A notice of intent not to renew the contract
  2. Remaining Term Elapses
    Several weeks pass while the contract runs to the end of its term
  3. Contract Expiration
    Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires by its own terms
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Contract Non-Renewal Notice
  • effect: Contract Expiration
  • responsibleAgent: Franchiser
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: the franchiser decides to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provides Engineer A of notice of its intent not to renew its contract with Engineer A's firm ... Several weeks later, Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires
  • necessaryFactors content: Franchiser's decision not to renew the contract; Passage of the remaining contract term; Absence of any renegotiation or renewal
  • sufficientFactors content: The non-renewal notice combined with the contract reaching the end of its term
  • counterfactual content: Had the franchiser renewed the contract, the agreement would not have terminated at expiration; the non-renewal decision ensured the relationship ended
  • agentKnowledge content: Franchiser knew the contract would expire by its own terms upon notice of non-renewal
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Contract Non-Renewal Notice', 'proeth:description': 'Franchiser provides Engineer A notice of intent not to renew the contract'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Remaining Term Elapses', 'proeth:description': 'Several weeks pass while the contract runs to the end of its term'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Contract Expiration', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires by its own terms"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#",
    "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/126#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.636346+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Franchiser knew the contract would expire by its own terms upon notice of non-renewal",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "the franchiser decides to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provides Engineer A of notice of its intent not to renew its contract with Engineer A\u0027s firm ... Several weeks later, Engineer A\u0027s agreement with the franchiser expires",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Franchiser provides Engineer A notice of intent not to renew the contract",
      "proeth:element": "Contract Non-Renewal Notice",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Several weeks pass while the contract runs to the end of its term",
      "proeth:element": "Remaining Term Elapses",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s agreement with the franchiser expires by its own terms",
      "proeth:element": "Contract Expiration",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Contract Non-Renewal Notice",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the franchiser renewed the contract, the agreement would not have terminated at expiration; the non-renewal decision ensured the relationship ended",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Contract Expiration",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Franchiser\u0027s decision not to renew the contract",
    "Passage of the remaining contract term",
    "Absence of any renegotiation or renewal"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Franchiser",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The non-renewal notice combined with the contract reaching the end of its term"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Several weeks later, Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires and the franchiser retains Engineer B as its design engineer.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Termination of Engineer A's agreement, freeing the franchiser from the prior engagement
  • Franchiser's satisfaction with Engineer B's review work
  • Franchiser's continuing need for a design engineer
Sufficient Factors:
  • Expiration of the prior agreement combined with the established working relationship between the franchiser and Engineer B
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A's contract not expired, the franchiser could not have cleanly retained Engineer B as its design engineer; the expiration removed the impediment noted in Section III.8.a. regarding terminated relationships
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Franchiser
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Contract Non-Renewal Notice
    Franchiser decides to end its relationship with Engineer A
  2. Reviewing Engineer Retention
    Franchiser retains Engineer B for immediate review to maintain continuity
  3. Design Review Performance
    Engineer B completes review of pending design concerns, demonstrating capability
  4. Contract Expiration
    Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires by its own terms
  5. Design Engineer Retention
    Franchiser retains Engineer B as its permanent design engineer
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Contract Expiration
  • effect: Design Engineer Retention
  • responsibleAgent: Franchiser
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Several weeks later, Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires and the franchiser retains Engineer B as its design engineer.
  • necessaryFactors content: Termination of Engineer A's agreement, freeing the franchiser from the prior engagement; Franchiser's satisfaction with Engineer B's review work; Franchiser's continuing need for a design engineer
  • sufficientFactors content: Expiration of the prior agreement combined with the established working relationship between the franchiser and Engineer B
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A's contract not expired, the franchiser could not have cleanly retained Engineer B as its design engineer; the expiration removed the impediment noted in Section III.8.a. regarding terminated relationships
  • agentKnowledge content: Franchiser knew Engineer A's relationship had fully terminated and that Engineer B had already performed satisfactory review work
  • interveningFactors content: Engineer B's prior review engagement and familiarity with the pending design concerns
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Contract Non-Renewal Notice', 'proeth:description': 'Franchiser decides to end its relationship with Engineer A'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Reviewing Engineer Retention', 'proeth:description': 'Franchiser retains Engineer B for immediate review to maintain continuity'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Design Review Performance', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B completes review of pending design concerns, demonstrating capability'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Contract Expiration', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires by its own terms"}; {'proeth:step': 5, 'proeth:element': 'Design Engineer Retention', 'proeth:description': 'Franchiser retains Engineer B as its permanent design engineer'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#",
    "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/126#CausalChain_8",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-13T05:13:24.636364+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Franchiser knew Engineer A\u0027s relationship had fully terminated and that Engineer B had already performed satisfactory review work",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Several weeks later, Engineer A\u0027s agreement with the franchiser expires and the franchiser retains Engineer B as its design engineer.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Franchiser decides to end its relationship with Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Contract Non-Renewal Notice",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Franchiser retains Engineer B for immediate review to maintain continuity",
      "proeth:element": "Reviewing Engineer Retention",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B completes review of pending design concerns, demonstrating capability",
      "proeth:element": "Design Review Performance",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s agreement with the franchiser expires by its own terms",
      "proeth:element": "Contract Expiration",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Franchiser retains Engineer B as its permanent design engineer",
      "proeth:element": "Design Engineer Retention",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Contract Expiration",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A\u0027s contract not expired, the franchiser could not have cleanly retained Engineer B as its design engineer; the expiration removed the impediment noted in Section III.8.a. regarding terminated relationships",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Design Engineer Retention",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s prior review engagement and familiarity with the pending design concerns"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Termination of Engineer A\u0027s agreement, freeing the franchiser from the prior engagement",
    "Franchiser\u0027s satisfaction with Engineer B\u0027s review work",
    "Franchiser\u0027s continuing need for a design engineer"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Franchiser",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Expiration of the prior agreement combined with the established working relationship between the franchiser and Engineer B"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (10)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
Engineer A's service as design engineer for the franchiser (several years) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		franchiser's notice of intent not to renew the contract time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		After several years, the franchiser decides to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provid... [more]
franchiser's retention of Engineer B for review during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		Engineer A's contract period (after notice, before expiration) time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		In order to maintain continuity and before the contract expires, the franchiser begins discussions w... [more]
franchiser's instruction to Engineer B not to disclose the relationship before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer B's review of the design information time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Prior to the review, franchiser specifically tells Engineer B not to disclose to Engineer A, Enginee... [more]
Engineer B's retention and instruction before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer B's review of design information time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Nevertheless, Engineer B reviews the design information the following week
Engineer B's review of design information meets
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins 		Engineer B's notification to Engineer A of the relationship and preliminary results time:intervalMeets
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalMeets 		Engineer B reviews the design information the following week and following his review, notifies Engi... [more]
Engineer B's notification to Engineer A before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		expiration of Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Several weeks later, Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires
expiration of Engineer A's agreement meets
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins 		franchiser's formal retention of Engineer B as design engineer time:intervalMeets
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalMeets 		Several weeks later, Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires and the franchiser retains E... [more]
events of the case (retention, review, disclosure, contract expiration) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Board's retrospective ethical evaluation in the Discussion time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		In light of the facts and consistent with BER Case 79-7, we are persuaded that Engineer B acted unet... [more]
strict Code provisions regarding relations among engineers before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		modified Code provisions reflecting client needs time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		At one time, the Code had strict provisions regarding relations among engineers. However, with the p... [more]
establishment of Engineer B's relationship with the client and the review before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		required disclosure under Section III.8.a (within a reasonable period) time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		We interpret Section III.8.a. to require disclosure within a reasonable period of time following the... [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