Francesconi on Structuring Legal Semantics in Legislation

Professor Dr. Enrico Francesconi of Università degli Studi di Firenze Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica and ITTIG/CNR has published Structuring Legal Semantics in Legislation, Jusletter IT, 22, Feb. 2011. Here is the abstract:

The effective implementation of the Semantic Web concept faces obstacles due to the difficulties in adopting shared knowledge modelling. Promising steps forward seem to be achievable in more limited domains, as the legal one, characterized by a specialized and technical information, well defined semantic structure of legislative documents, as well as peculiar user needs in terms of legal information retrieval, reasoning and consultancy services. This paper discusses legislative text semantics whose management is an essential pre-condition to implement the Semantic Web concept in the legal domain. In particular a model able to analytically describe the semantics of legislative texts, as well as tools able to facilitate its implementation are presented; moreover, possible advanced services, which can be offered to public administrations, legal experts and citizens, on the basis of this model are discussed.

Winkels: What’s in an Interchange Standard for Legislative XML?

Professor Dr. Radboud Winkels of the Leibniz Center for Law of the University of Amsterdam has published What’s in an Interchange Standard for Legislative XML?, Jusletter IT, 22, Feb. 2011. Here is the abstract:

To make efficient and effective use of all sources of law electronically available in Europe, with all their different (XML) formats, we need an open interchange standard. Such a standard will enable public administrations to better serve their citizens and organisations, to link legal information from various levels of authority and different countries and languages. Moreover, it will enable companies active in the field of legal knowledge systems to design methods and tools that support a much larger market and it will protect customers of such companies from vendor lock-in. Such an interchange standard should obviously be jurisdiction and language independent. Furthermore, it should refrain from describing elements that are not specific for legal documents and it should refrain from describing elements that require interpretation of the content of these documents. Finally, the standard should allow for easy (external) linking of separate knowledge models of the content to the original sources of law. We claim that MetaLex meets these requirements best, and has been specifically designed to meet these requirements.

Schweighofer: Europäische Projektkultur und Rationalisierung des Rechts

Professor Dr. Erich Schweighofer of Universität Wien Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik has published Europäische Projektkultur und Rationalisierung des Rechts, Jusletter IT, 24, Feb. 2011. Here is the abstract:

Die Europäische Projektkultur beeinflusst zunehmend die universitäre Forschung. Das Siebte Rahmenprogramm FP7 ist Teil des Europäischen Forschungsraums, der sich aus sämtlichen Forschungs- und Entwicklungsaktivitäten sowie Programmen und Strategien in Europa mit grenzüberschreitender Perspektive zusammensetzt. Daher ist es für die Rechtswissenschaften wichtig, in den Zielkatalogen der Forschungsförderinstitutionen aufzuscheinen. Die Rechtsinformatik ist als wenig finanziertes Fach auf die Projektforschung angewiesen. Ein Leitthema könnte die Rationalisierung des Rechts sein, wobei der Beitrag der Rechtsinformatik in mehr Transparenz und mehr Akzeptanz des Rechts, im Aufbau von semantischen Rechtsinformationssystemen, in der Regulierung im semantischen Raum sowie in der Unterstützung der «Accountability» liegt.

Brunschwig on Multisensory Law and Legal Informatics

Dr. Colette R. Brunschwig of Universität Zürich Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät has published Multisensory Law and Legal Informatics – A Comparison of How These Legal Disciplines Relate to Visual Law, Jusletter IT, 22, Feb. 2011. Here is the abstract:

This paper discusses how multisensory law and legal informatics deal with the flood of legal information and the complexity of law. Failing a comparison to date how these legal disciplines relate to visual law, and how they attempt to provide lawyers or laypersons with adequate coping strategies, this paper aims to contribute to filling this research gap. It draws on insights from various disciplines, such as legal informatics, legal theory, multisensory law, and so forth. Key findings include that there is a similarity between multisensory law and legal informatics regarding the general function of their visual products. Given this finding, this paper provides a first systematic knowledge basis for multisensory law and particularly for its relationship to visual law. It builds specific systematic knowledge about the subject matter and cognitive interest of multisensory law and its branch «visual law.» It contributes to the current understanding of legal informatics and clarifies how legal informatics and visual law are related. What are the implications of the findings presented here? They challenge the (still) prevailing verbocentric legal paradigm by advocating a shift toward a multisensory legal paradigm. The new paradigm does not refute well-founded and indispensable verbal legal communication. Rather, it stands for blending established with multisensory modes of legal communication. In terms of the sociology of science, such a paradigm shift would imply that the growing number of uni- and multisensory legal phenomena would gain the necessary scientific attention. Particularly as visual, audiovisual, and tactile-kinesthetic legal phenomena are gaining increasing significance in the legal context, it is simply not possible to think them away from jurisprudence (Rechtswissenschaft) and legal practice. Without intending to diminish the lasting significance of legal informatics for ICT-based uni- and multisensory legal phenomena, this paper suggests subsuming all the uni- and multisensory legal phenomena under multisensory law, whether they are ICT-based or not. This – highly debatable – suggestion is based on the observation that the established disciplines of the applicable law and the basic legal disciplines fail to adequately explore the legal or legally relevant phenomena at stake, at least as regards certain subject areas of multisensory law (the law as a uni- and multisensory phenomenon in the law and the law as a uni- and multisensory phenomenon).

Thanks to Dr. Brunschwig for notifying us of this paper.