1 / 28

A Comparison of Legal Visualization and Technical Visualization

A Comparison of Legal Visualization and Technical Visualization. Vytautas Č YRAS Vilnius University, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Vilnius, Lithuania Vytautas.Cyras@mif.vu.lt. 1. Limiting a class of pictures. Limiting the scope of analysis. 2 domains law

soren
Download Presentation

A Comparison of Legal Visualization and Technical Visualization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Comparison of Legal Visualization and Technical Visualization Vytautas ČYRAS Vilnius University, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Vilnius, Lithuania Vytautas.Cyras@mif.vu.lt

  2. 1. Limiting a class of pictures

  3. 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

  4. A 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 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

  5. The three different perspectives [Eppler and Burkhard 2006] Knowledge type (what?) Visualization goal (why?) Transferring (clarification, elicitation, socialization) Creating (discovery, combination) Learning (acquisition, internationalization) Finding (e.g., experts, documents, groups) Assessing (evaluation, rating) Visualization format (how?) • Know-what? • Know-how? • Know-why? • Know-where? • Know-who? • Heuristic sketches • Conceptual diag-rams(purpose – to structure information and illustrate relationships) • Visual metaphors • Knowledge animations • Knowledge maps • Domain structures

  6. Limiting the technical domain • Technical drawings Electrical diagrams, piping, ventilation, etc. • Air traffic management Airport arrival and departure charts • Information systems (IS) requirements engineering (RE). UML diagrams • Virtual worlds, e.g. “Second Life”, “World of Warcraft” “Drawing is law” Legal subjects: manufacturers, sellers, maintenance, etc.

  7. The spirit of domain • Visualizations preserving the spirit • of the legal domain • of the technical domain

  8. 2. Examples of visualizations in law

  9. Legal argumentation Dialogue default sequence for argumentation scheme; see D.Walton (2003)

  10. Legal reasoning Value-based Argumentation Framework (VAF) showing arguments, objections and rebuttals; see Bex et al. (2009)

  11. The 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)

  12. (2.4) Object The structure of norm Norm (2.1) Subject (2.3) Modus (2.3) Action • Telos(goal) • See also F. Lachmayer (1977) “Grundzüge einer Normentheorie” (1) Condition (3) Telos

  13. The spirit of the law is preserved (2) (2) „positiv“ „positiv“ B te A (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)

  14. 3. Examples of pictures in technical domains

  15. Electrical connections diagram • Recht in Bilder (Law in Diagram) • Technical rules in computer, in Computer-Aided Design system • “Diagram is law” • Legally binding agreement

  16. A 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.

  17. Graphical 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)

  18. Normative positions in software requirements Entitlements, permissions, etc., in SI* model of the health care scenario [Compagna et al. 2009]

  19. Virtual worlds • Serious, e.g. “Second Life”, “Active Worlds” Educational Universe • Not games e.g. “World of Warcraft” • I am neither a proponent nor opponent of them. • Consider negative factors such as addiction • Research & software development project • FP7 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”

  20. Sample scenarios Web 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 ‘Keep off the grass’ This translation complies with: • Lawrence Lessig’s conception “Code is law” • Raph Koster’s “Declaration of the Rights of Avatars” Natural intelligence – a team of (1) a legal expert, and (2) virtual world developer Translation ‘The subject – avatar – is forbidden the action – walking on the grass’ Translation Natural intelligence – a programmer A software program, i.e. a script. Implemented by trigers which control the avatar

  22. Examples of rules • An 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.

  23. 4. A comparison

  24. The goals of the comparison • Modeling • Formalization • Theory development • “Symbolization” • Reflection • Knowledge representation • Creating diagrams • Sociological aspects: I am not an expert

  25. A 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.159-160] • 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. Quelle: von Hoyningen-Huene, Betriebliches Arbeitsrecht, 1977

  26. Thank you http://www.usercentricmedia.org/workshops/trustvws2009/ Vytautas.Cyras@mif.vu.lt

More Related