Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Comparison of Legal Visualization and Technical
Visualization
Vytautas ČYRASVilnius University,
Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Vilnius, Lithuania
1.Limiting a class of
pictures
2
Limiting the scope of analysis
• 2 domains– law– technical domain (technology)
• A classification of pictures in law; see Röhl & Ulbrich (2007)– iconic pictures– logical pictures (logische Bilder)– other pictures
3
A comparison frameworkA framework for knowledge visualization [Eppler and
Burkhard 2006]; see also [Zachman 1987]1. Knowledge type (What? What type of knowledge is
visualized (object)?)Legal knowledge
2. Visualization goal (Why? Why should that knowledge be visualized (purpose)?)Accomplishing functions and tasks in the 2 domains – law and
technology
3. Visualization format (How? How can the knowledge be represented (method)?)
Logical pictures – conceptual diagrams
4
The three different perspectives [Eppler and Burkhard 2006]
Knowledge type (what?)
• Know-what?
• Know-how?
• Know-why?
• Know-where?
• Know-who?
Visualization goal (why?)
• Transferring (clarification, elicitation, socialization)
• Creating (discovery, combination)
• Learning (acquisition, internationalization)
• Finding (e.g., experts, documents, groups)
• Assessing (evaluation, rating)
5
Visualization format (how?)
• Heuristic sketches• Conceptual diag-
rams (purpose – to structure information and illustrate relationships)
• Visual metaphors• Knowledge
animations• Knowledge maps• Domain structures
Limiting the technical domain
1. Technical drawingsElectrical diagrams, piping, ventilation, etc.
2. Air traffic managementAirport arrival and departure charts
3. Information systems (IS) requirements engineering (RE). UML diagrams
4. Virtual worlds, e.g. “Second Life”, “World of Warcraft”
“Drawing is law”
Legal subjects: manufacturers, sellers, maintenance, etc.6
The spirit of domain
• Visualizations preserving the spirit– of the legal domain– of the technical domain
7
Property Legal visualization Technical visualization
Knowledge type (what?) Legal knowledge Requirements
Visualization goal (why?)
Legal tasks Contracts
Format (how?) Logical pictures Conceptual diagrams
Abstractness of norms Yes No
Freedom of interpretation
Big Little
Open texture problem Yes No
Decision Yes, no, intermediate Yes, no
Purpose of decision Solve a dispute Answer yes/no
Interpreters of legal knowledge
Jurists – have legal education
Engineers – do not have legal education
Synthesis No. Yes. Software is generated automatically
2.Examples of
visualizations in law
9
Legal argumentation
10
Dialogue default sequence for argumentation scheme; see D.Walton (2003)
Legal reasoning
11
Value-based Argumentation Framework (VAF) showing arguments, objections and rebuttals; see Bex et al. (2009)
The spirit of mathematics outweighs the spirit of law
12
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)
The structure of norm
• Telos (goal)• See also F. Lachmayer (1977) “Grundzüge einer
Normentheorie”
13
Norm
(1) Condition
(2.4) Object
(3) Telos
(2.1) Subject (2.3) Action
(2.3
) M
od
us
ABte
„positiv“„positiv“
N ( A)
(1) sets the relation A te B(2) evaluates: both the action A and the goal B(3) sets the norm N(A)
The spirit of the law is preserved
(1)
(2)(2)
(3) STM(A te B)
STM (Wert)
A graphical notation has no strict syntax and semantics. Though it visualizes strict statements:
3. Examples of pictures in
technical domains
15
Electrical connections diagram
16
• Recht in Bilder (Law in Diagram)
• Technical rules in computer, in Computer-Aided Design system
• “Diagram is law”
• Legally binding agreement
A landing procedure for
an aircraft
17
• Strict semantics of the rules.• Subject – the pilot.• An observer at the airport detects violations of the rules.
“Diagram is law”
Graphical notation for
legal requirements
18
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)
Normative positions in software requirements
19
Entitlements, permissions, etc., in SI* model of the health care scenario [Compagna et al. 2009]
Virtual worlds• Serious, e.g. “Second Life”,
“Active Worlds” Educational Universe
• Not gamese.g. “World of Warcraft”
• I am neither a proponent nor opponent of them.
20
Consider negative factors such as addiction
Research & software development projectFP7 ICT VirtualLife project, 3 years from 01.01.2008
Title “Secure, Trusted and Legally Ruled Collaboration Environment in Virtual Life”. Acronym “VirtualLife”
Goal: software platform – peer-to-peer architecture
Learning support as a use scenario, e.g. “University Virtual Campus”
Sample scenariosWeb 2.0
– information as a content
– asynchronous communication
“University Virtual Campus”– interaction as a content
– synchronous communication
21
From legal rules – to virtual world rules – to rules in software
22
This translation complies with:– Lawrence Lessig’s conception “Code is law”– Raph Koster’s “Declaration of the Rights of Avatars”
‘Keep off the grass’
‘The subject – avatar – is forbidden the action – walking on the grass’
A software program, i.e. a script. Implemented by trigers which control the avatar
Natural intelligence – a team of (1) a legal expert, and (2) virtual world developer
Natural intelligence – a programmer
Translation
Translation
Examples of rules1. An avatar is forbidden to touch objects not owned by him
or a certain group.
2. An avatar not belonging to a given group is forbidden to a given area of the zone.
3. An avatar is forbidden to create more than a given number of objects during a given time interval.
4. An avatar is forbidden to use a given dictionary of words (slang) while chatting with other avatars.
5. An avatar of age is forbidden to chat with avatars under age.
6. An avatar is forbidden to execute authorized scripts in a certain area.
23
4. A comparison
24
Property Legal visualization Technical visualization
Knowledge type (what?) Legal knowledge. Sources: doctrine, statutes, case law, etc.
Requirements engineering
Visualization goal (why?) Legal tasks Legally binding relationships
Format (how?) Logical pictures Conceptual diagrams
Abstractness of norms Yes No
Freedom of interpretation Big (in certain extent).Grammatical interpretation, teleological, etc.
Little
Open texture problem Yes. Introduced intentio-nally. Variety of situations
No. Verification, validation, testing
Decision Yes/no/intermediate Yes/no
Purpose of decision Solve a dispute.Criterion: justice
Answer yes/no
Interpretation of legal knowledge is different
Jurists – have legal education
Engineers – do not have legal education
Formalism Not wanted Wanted – for automation
Synthesis No.“Yes”, for simple cases
Yes. Software can be generated from diagrams
The goals of the comparison
• Modeling• Formalization• Theory development• “Symbolization”• Reflection• Knowledge representation• Creating diagrams
• Sociological aspects: I am not an expert26
A need for a detailed diagram
27
Quelle: von Hoyningen-Huene, Betriebliches Arbeitsrecht, 1977
„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.159-160]
Rechtsquellenpyramide des Arbeitsrechts
The 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 rules• horizontal direct effect (Defrenne), • no horizontal effect for directives (Marshall),• state liability (Francovich), etc.
Thank you
http://www.usercentricmedia.org/workshops/trustvws2009/
