Presentation on theme: "A Comparison of Legal Visualization and Technical Visualization"— Presentation transcript:
1A Comparison of Legal Visualization and Technical Visualization Vytautas ČYRASVilnius University,Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics,Vilnius, Lithuania
2Limiting a class of pictures 1.Limiting a class of pictures
3Limiting the scope of analysis 2 domainslawtechnical domain (technology)A classification of pictures in law; see Röhl & Ulbrich (2007)iconic pictureslogical pictures (logische Bilder)other pictures
4A comparison framework A framework for knowledge visualization [Eppler and Burkhard 2006]; see also [Zachman 1987]Knowledge type (What? What type of knowledge is visualized (object)?)Legal knowledge2. Visualization goal (Why? Why should that knowledge be visualized (purpose)?)Accomplishing functions and tasks in the 2 domains – law and technology3. Visualization format (How? How can the knowledge be represented (method)?)Logical pictures – conceptual diagrams
5The three different perspectives [Eppler and Burkhard 2006] Knowledge type (what?)Visualization goal (why?)Visualization format (how?)Transferring (clarification, elicitation, socialization)Creating (discovery, combination)Learning (acquisition, internationalization)Finding (e.g., experts, documents, groups)Assessing (evaluation, rating)Heuristic sketchesConceptual diag-rams (purpose – to structure information and illustrate relationships)Visual metaphorsKnowledge animationsKnowledge mapsDomain structuresKnow-what?Know-how?Know-why?Know-where?Know-who?
6Limiting the technical domain Technical drawingsElectrical diagrams, piping, ventilation, etc.Air traffic managementAirport arrival and departure chartsInformation systems (IS) requirements engineering (RE) UML diagramsVirtual worlds, e.g. “Second Life”, “World of Warcraft”“Drawing is law”Legal subjects: manufacturers, sellers, maintenance, etc.
7The spirit of domain Visualizations preserving the spirit of the legal domainof the technical domain
8PropertyLegal visualizationTechnical visualizationKnowledge type (what?)Legal knowledgeRequirementsVisualization goal (why?)Legal tasksContractsFormat (how?)Logical picturesConceptual diagramsAbstractness of normsYesNoFreedom of interpretationBigLittleOpen texture problemDecisionYes, no, intermediateYes, noPurpose of decisionSolve a disputeAnswer yes/noInterpreters of legal knowledgeJurists – have legal educationEngineers – do not have legal educationSynthesisNo.Yes. Software is generated automatically
9Examples of visualizations in law 2.Examples of visualizations in law
10Legal argumentationDialogue default sequence for argumentation scheme; see D.Walton (2003)
11Legal reasoningValue-based Argumentation Framework (VAF) showing arguments, objections and rebuttals; see Bex et al. (2009)
12The spirit of mathematics outweighs the spirit of law A mathematical structure – partial order – in legal argument. A theory for 3 cases – Pierson v. Post, Keeble v. Hickeringill and Young v. Hitchens; see Bench-Capon (2002)
13The structure of norm Telos (goal) (1) Condition(2.4) Object(3) Telos(2.1) Subject(2.3) Action(2.3) ModusTelos (goal)See also F. Lachmayer (1977) “Grundzüge einer Normentheorie”
14The spirit of the law is preserved (2)(2)„positiv“„positiv“BteA(1)STM (Wert)STM(A te B)(3)N ( A)A graphical notation has no strict syntax and semantics. Though it visualizes strict statements:(1) sets the relation A te B(2) evaluates: both the action A and the goal B(3) sets the norm N(A)
15Examples of pictures in technical domains 3.Examples of pictures in technical domains
16Electrical connections diagram Recht in Bilder (Law in Diagram)Technical rules in computer, in Computer-Aided Design system“Diagram is law”Legally binding agreement
17A landing procedure for an aircraft “Diagram is law”Strict semantics of the rules.Subject – the pilot.An observer at the airport detects violations of the rules.
18Graphical notation for legal requirements SI* graphical notation; see L.Compagna et al. “How to integrate legal requirements into a requirements engineering methodology for the development of security and privacy patterns” (2009)
19Normative positions in software requirements Entitlements, permissions, etc., in SI* model of the health care scenario [Compagna et al. 2009]
20Virtual worldsSerious, e.g. “Second Life”, “Active Worlds” Educational UniverseNot gamese.g. “World of Warcraft”I am neither a proponent nor opponent of them.Consider negative factors such as addictionResearch & software development projectFP7 ICT VirtualLife project, 3 years fromTitle “Secure, Trusted and Legally Ruled Collaboration Environment in Virtual Life”. Acronym “VirtualLife”Goal: software platform – peer-to-peer architectureLearning support as a use scenario, e.g. “University Virtual Campus”
21Sample scenarios Web 2.0 “University Virtual Campus” information as a contentasynchronous communication“University Virtual Campus”interaction as a contentsynchronous communication
22From legal rules – to virtual world rules – to rules in software ‘Keep off the grass’Natural intelligence – a team of (1) a legal expert, and (2) virtual world developerTranslation‘The subject – avatar – is forbidden the action – walking on the grass’TranslationNatural intelligence – a programmerA software program, i.e. a script. Implemented by trigers which control the avatarThis translation complies with:Lawrence Lessig’s conception “Code is law”Raph Koster’s “Declaration of the Rights of Avatars”
23Examples of rulesAn avatar is forbidden to touch objects not owned by him or a certain group.An avatar not belonging to a given group is forbidden to a given area of the zone.An avatar is forbidden to create more than a given number of objects during a given time interval.An avatar is forbidden to use a given dictionary of words (slang) while chatting with other avatars.An avatar of age is forbidden to chat with avatars under age.An avatar is forbidden to execute authorized scripts in a certain area.
25PropertyLegal visualizationTechnical visualizationKnowledge type (what?)Legal knowledge. Sources: doctrine, statutes, case law, etc.Requirements engineeringVisualization goal (why?)Legal tasksLegally binding relationshipsFormat (how?)Logical picturesConceptual diagramsAbstractness of normsYesNoFreedom of interpretationBig (in certain extent).Grammatical interpretation, teleological, etc.LittleOpen texture problemYes. Introduced intentio-nally. Variety of situationsNo. Verification, validation, testingDecisionYes/no/intermediateYes/noPurpose of decisionSolve a dispute.Criterion: justiceAnswer yes/noInterpretation of legal knowledge is differentJurists – have legal educationEngineers – do not have legal educationFormalismNot wantedWanted – for automationSynthesisNo.“Yes”, for simple casesYes. Software can be generated from diagrams
26The goals of the comparison ModelingFormalizationTheory development“Symbolization”ReflectionKnowledge representationCreating diagramsSociological aspects: I am not an expert
27A need for a detailed diagram Rechtsquellenpyramide des Arbeitsrechts„In Abbildung ist diese Hierarchievorstellung auch in der Sache anfechtbar. Es gibt naemlich keine klare Hierarchie zwischen dem Europarecht und dem nationalen Verfassungsrecht, denn noch immer leitet das Europarecht seine Geltung in Deutschland aus Art.23 GG ab.“ [Röhl & Ulbrich 2007, p ]Europa-rechtGrund-gesetzGesetzeTarifverträgeBetriebsvereinbarungenArbeitsvertragWeisungsrecht des ArbeitgebersThe principle of the primacy of EC law requires detailed hierarchical diagrams. The concepts:direct applicability (unmittelbare Geltung),direct effect (unmittelbare Anwendbarkeit) (Van Gend & Loos, Costa)duty to set aside conflicting national ruleshorizontal direct effect (Defrenne),no horizontal effect for directives (Marshall),state liability (Francovich), etc.Quelle: von Hoyningen-Huene, Betriebliches Arbeitsrecht, 1977
28Thank you http://www.usercentricmedia.org/workshops/trustvws2009/