Deontic SHACL

Extends standard SHACL target declarations with deontic modalities. A shape can target nodes not just for structural validation, but to assert that certain triples must exist (obligation), may exist (permission), or must not exist (prohibition). This is achieved through custom SHACL parameter declarations or SPARQL-based constraint components that evaluate the deontic status of a graph pattern rather than simple conformance.

Distinguishes between two distinct failure modes critical for legal reasoning systems:

• Structural Violation: A standard SHACL constraint failure indicating malformed data
• Normative Non-Compliance: A deontic failure indicating a breach of an obligation or a prohibited state exists

This separation allows compliance engines to generate audit trails that differentiate between data quality issues and actual regulatory breaches, each triggering different remediation workflows.

Integrates with contrary-to-duty (CTD) obligation modeling by allowing shapes to define primary obligations and their corresponding fallback rules. When a primary obligation shape reports a violation, secondary CTD shapes are automatically activated to validate whether the appropriate remedial obligations have been fulfilled. This prevents the logical paradoxes that arise when a violation of a primary norm is treated as a simple constraint failure with no normative consequence.

Assigns severity classifications to deontic constraint violations beyond standard SHACL severity levels:

• Prohibition violations: Critical severity, indicating forbidden states
• Obligation violations: High severity, indicating unfulfilled duties
• Permission boundary warnings: Informational, indicating states approaching prohibition thresholds

These levels integrate with compliance dashboards to prioritize remediation actions based on normative weight rather than technical severity alone.

Extends SHACL's validation scope to include temporal operators that evaluate deontic compliance over time windows. Shapes can assert that:

• An obligation must be fulfilled within 30 days of a triggering event
• A prohibition applies only during a specified regulatory period
• A permission expires after a deadline

This temporal awareness is essential for modeling real-world legal obligations that have activation, fulfillment, and expiration lifecycles.

Detects and reports normative conflicts where two applicable shapes prescribe incompatible deontic conclusions for the same target node. For example, one regulation may obligate data retention while another prohibits it. The conflict report includes:

• The conflicting shape identifiers and their source authority
• The specific triples in conflict
• Suggested resolution strategies based on lex superior, lex specialis, or lex posterior principles

This transforms SHACL from a passive validator into an active normative reasoning engine.

A state where two or more applicable norms prescribe incompatible actions, requiring resolution strategies.

• Resolution Principles: Includes lex superior (higher authority prevails), lex specialis (specific law overrides general), and lex posterior (later law supersedes earlier).
• Deontic SHACL Role: Detects these conflicts by identifying nodes that simultaneously violate and satisfy contradictory deontic shapes, flagging them for automated or manual resolution.

A temporal formalism for tracking the full lifecycle of obligations within an event stream.

• Lifecycle States: Models the activation, fulfillment, violation, and expiration of duties over time.
• Synergy with SHACL: While Deontic SHACL validates a static graph snapshot, Deontic Event Calculus monitors the dynamic sequence of actions that lead to a violation, providing a complete temporal compliance picture.

An algorithmic engine that evaluates a trace of agent actions against a formalized set of deontic rules.

• Function: Consumes a log of events and a knowledge base of norms to output a compliance report detailing violations.
• Deontic SHACL as a Component: Serves as the static validation module within a larger compliance checking architecture, verifying the state of the world at any given point against normative constraints.

A fundamental analytical framework decomposing legal relations into eight jural correlatives.

• Core Pairs: Includes right/duty, privilege/no-right, power/liability, and immunity/disability.
• Precision for SHACL: Applying Hohfeldian analysis before modeling ensures that Deontic SHACL shapes accurately capture the directed nature of legal relations, distinguishing a duty owed to a specific party from a general prohibition.