Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| project:legal:productliability [2013/08/27 02:11] – [Possible implementation steps] alog | project:legal:productliability [2018/11/13 15:34] (current) – [Linked Product Liability Data (LPLD)] alicesmith | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | ===== Linked Product Liability Data (LPLD) ===== | + | This is a [[event: |
| - | ===== Project description | + | ====== Linked Product Liability Data (LPLD) ====== |
| - | This project, started by the [[event: | + | This project aims to build a Linked Data repository containing information about regimes in product |
| - | ==== Possible implementation steps ==== | + | |
| + | === Hackathon goals === | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is a proof of concept. We would like to investigate and define a systematic approach to collect the data, if possible in an automatic way. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Some possible practical steps === | ||
| - An existing standard legal ontology has to be found | - An existing standard legal ontology has to be found | ||
| - The ontology is then extended with the needed concepts in order to be able to model the different legal theories used to establish a link between plaintiff and defendant. | - The ontology is then extended with the needed concepts in order to be able to model the different legal theories used to establish a link between plaintiff and defendant. | ||
| - (optional): a vizualisation could be done to offer a didactic overview of what product liability is | - (optional): a vizualisation could be done to offer a didactic overview of what product liability is | ||
| - | - A [[http:// | + | - A [[http:// |
| - | - A simple RESTfull API can be defined on top of the SPARQL-Endpoint to querry information about product liability. | + | - Starting from the defined ontology, the triple store is then populated with information about different applicable legal product liability theories. This is done by venue (country, state or province) and other criteria (e.g. type of product) |
| - | + | ||
| - | ==== Extra goal ==== | + | |
| - | Determine anticipated changes to applicable | + | ^ Jurisdiction |
| + | | Germany | ||
| + | | Germany | ||
| + | | Germany | ||
| + | | North Carolina | - | | yes | contributory negligence | | | ||
| + | | ... | ... | .... | ... | ... | ... | | ||
| - | ==== Examples of results ==== | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | * Strict liability applicable in Germany for damages caused by products sold to consumers without further processing | + | |
| - | * Strict liability cause of action not available in North Carolina | + | |
| ==== Data sources ==== | ==== Data sources ==== | ||
| Line 32: | Line 37: | ||
| * http:// | * http:// | ||
| + | * http:// | ||
| + | * https:// | ||
| + | |||
| | | ||
| {{tag> | {{tag> | ||