towards multidimensional rule visualizations. conference rules 2013 presentation
TRANSCRIPT
Vytautas ČYRAS Vilnius University
Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics
Vilnius, Lithuania
Friedrich LACHMAYER Vienna and Innsbruck
(University of Innsbruck, Faculty of Law)
Innsbruck, Austria)
Towards Multidimensional
Rule Visualizations
RULES 2013, 27-29 September 2013, Krakow
1.
Introduction
2
“Clare et distincte”
• Visualization refers to clear knowledge
3
On visualizations in law
• Röhl & Ulbrich (2007) Law vividly: visualization in legal education [in German: Recht anschaulich: Visualisierung in der Juristenausbildung]. Köln: Halem – Picture-shy of jurisprudence [Bilderscheu der
Jurisprudenz]
– Law is text [Recht ist text]
• Colette Brunschwig (2013) Law is not or must not be just verbal and visual in the 21st century: Toward multisensory law. http://www.rwi.uzh.ch/oe/zrf/abtrv/brunschwig/publications/CRBrunschwigLawisNotorMustNotBeJustVerbalandVisualinthe21stCenturycolor.pdf
4
Legal machine
5
Condition
• human being
• machine
Actor
Legal
actor
Action Effect
Legal
action
Legal
effect
Legal
condition
• Raw fact
• Institutional fact
Building a bridge in legal informatics
6
Bridge
Legal
text Program
Compliance
Law enforcement,
implementation
Multiphase Transformation
approach
7
Legal
text
2.
Types of
multidimensionality
8
Different functions of
visualizations/representations Different strengths and weaknesses
– Details vs. holistic picture
• Text – As a form of visualization
– Communication of large quantities of data
• Picture – Summary of a holistic nature
• Symbols – E.g. traffic signs
• Legal logic – Deontic logic
9
See Wahlgren, Visualization of the Law. In IRIS 2008
1D
• if state_of_affairs then legal_consequences
A → B
Norm(A/B)
• Ilmar Tammelo (1978)
• Prolog-like notations
– Hajime Yoshino’s Logical Jurisprudence
10
2D and 2 ½ D
• Pictorial representations – Allegories, e.g. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
• Info-graphics
• Argumentation graphs
• Storytelling
• Legal workflows
– Wolfgang Kahlig
• 1D to 2D
11
3D and films
• 3D: a statue
• Films
– Menzi-Muck-timber case – the Film!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI7zeuayum4
– www.telejura.de
12
Visualization criteria
• Citation – Titles of laws, article no.
• Colours
• Dimensions – Wire-cube
• Domains
• Elements with text – Abbreviations may be difficult
• Focus – Bold face, dark background
• Mindmapping – Creative,
• E.g. design of ontologies
• Mixed types – Good for education
– Difficult for uniform semantics
• Quantity of elements – Too many, sub-elements, layers
• Relationships – Different connectors and arrows
• Tables – Not always creative
• Traditional formal diagrams – Argument diagrams
• Vertical and horizontal axes – Top-down: hierarchy, time
– Left-right: time, etc.
13
3.
Visualizations
in JURIX 2012
proceedings
14
“Refined coherence as constraint satisfaction
framework for representing judicial reasoning”
(Araszkiewicz & Šavelka)
15 Figure 1. Constraint network for conversion claim in Popov v. Hayashi case (p. 8)
“Computational data protection law”
(Buchanan et al.)
16 Figure 1. Overview of the architecture (p. 36)
“The e-Codex project” (Francesconi)
17
Figure 1. (a) High level architecture (b) Message routing (p. 43)
Francesconi (2)
18 Figure 2. Relations between Domain and Document Model (p. 47)
“Argument analysis system with
factor annotation” (Kubosawa et al.)
19
Figure 4. Graphical model representation of semi supervised LDA
(linear discriminant analysis) (p. 66)
“An argumentation model of
evidential reasoning” (Liang & Wei)
20
Figure 1. Inference graph and argument graph (p. 74)
“Formalising a legal opinion on a legislative
proposal in the ASPIC+ framework” (Prakken)
21 Figure 1. The reconstruction (p. 127)
Conclusions
• Projects, which are presented at JURIX,
are avant-garde
• Making visualization as avant-garde is a
tough task
– Knowledge of different domains
• law
• informatics
• media
• semiotics
22
