1. A Comparison of Legal Visualization and Technical Visualization
Vytautas ČYRAS
Vilnius University,
Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics,
Vilnius, Lithuania

2. Limiting a class of pictures1.
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?)
Visualization format (how?)
Transferring (clarification, elicitation, socialization)
Creating (discovery, combination)
Learning (acquisition, internationalization)
Finding (e.g., experts, documents, groups)
Assessing (evaluation, rating)
Heuristic sketches
Conceptual diag-rams (purpose – to structure information and illustrate relationships)
Visual metaphors
Knowledge animations
Knowledge maps
Domain structures
Know-what?
Know-how?
Know-why?
Know-where?
Know-who?

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. 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
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

9. Examples of visualizations in law2.
Examples of visualizations in law

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

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

12. 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)

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

14. 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)

15. Examples of pictures in technical domains3.
Examples of pictures in technical domains

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

17. 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.

18. 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)

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

20. 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
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”

21. Sample scenarios Web 2.0 “University Virtual Campus”
information as a content
asynchronous communication
“University Virtual Campus”
interaction as a content
synchronous communication

22. From 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 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
This translation complies with:
Lawrence Lessig’s conception “Code is law”
Raph Koster’s “Declaration of the Rights of Avatars”

23. 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.

24. 4.
A comparison

25. 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

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

27. 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 ]
Europa-recht
Grund-gesetz
Gesetze
Tarifverträge
Betriebsvereinbarungen
Arbeitsvertrag
Weisungsrecht des Arbeitgebers
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

28. Thank you http://www.usercentricmedia.org/workshops/trustvws2009/