Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Bridging Representation of Laws, of Implementations and of Behaviours

189 views

Published on

Presentation at JURIX 2015 (Legal Knowledge and Information Systems) conference.

To align representations of law, of implementations of law and of concrete behaviours, we designed a common ground representational model for the three domains, based on the notion of position, building upon Petri nets. This paper reports on work to define subsumption between positional models.

Published in: Engineering
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Bridging Representation of Laws, of Implementations and of Behaviours

  1. 1. Bridging Representations of Laws, of Implementations and of Behaviours Giovanni Sileno (g.sileno@uva.nl), Alexander Boer, Tom van Engers Leibniz Center for Law University of Amsterdam 11 December 2015 – JURIX @ Braga
  2. 2. Law in action ● Law is often expressed in general (addressing classes of persons) and referring to “abstract” normative notions.
  3. 3. Law in action ● Law is often expressed in general (addressing classes of persons) and referring to “abstract” normative notions. ● Courts and public administrations are required to apply those provisions in actual, contextualized behavioural terms.
  4. 4. Law in action ● Law is often expressed in general (addressing classes of persons) and referring to “abstract” normative notions. ● Courts and public administrations are required to apply those provisions in actual, contextualized behavioural terms. ex-post
  5. 5. Law in action ● Law is often expressed in general (addressing classes of persons) and referring to “abstract” normative notions. ● Courts and public administrations are required to apply those provisions in actual, contextualized behavioural terms. ex-post ex-ante
  6. 6. Law Implementations of Law Social Behaviours legal-administrative infrastructure social system Research objective: a (partial) realignment of representations of legal system
  7. 7. Law Implementations of Law Social Behaviours legal norms as institutional mechanisms legal-administrative infrastructure social system Research objective: a (partial) realignment of representations of legal system business processes intentional characterizations of behaviour
  8. 8. Generalization ● The core problem – of normative, epistemic and ontological frictions – is more general than the legal activity.
  9. 9. Generalization ● The core problem – of normative, epistemic and ontological frictions – is more general than the legal activity. ● Similar contextualization processes exist to a certain extent in any agency (individual or organization), as requirement to be embedded in the social world.
  10. 10. Internal view of agency ● Social norms and legal norms – promote or demote certain action-selections (via obligations and prohibitions) – create the possibility of certain action- selections (via institutional power)
  11. 11. Internal view of agency ● Social norms and legal norms – promote or demote certain action-selections (via obligations and prohibitions) – create the possibility of certain action- selections (via institutional power) ● They intuitively are full-fledged components of behavioural models which take an internal perspective to agency.
  12. 12. External view of agency ● In contrast, representations which take an external perspective have a focus on observable interactions between entities, – without referring to any internal mechanism.
  13. 13. Going beyond internal/external ● However, the definition of – what counts as a certain action, – how the identity of an agent is settled, are always consequent to the ontological frame to which the observer is implicitly committed.
  14. 14. Going beyond internal/external ● However, the definition of – what counts as a certain action, – how the identity of an agent is settled, are always consequent to the ontological frame to which the observer is implicitly committed ● A pure external perspective cannot exist.
  15. 15. Going beyond internal/external ● The internal and external views can be seen as two poles establishing a representational spectrum to describe, to explain and, where applicable, to prescribe behaviour. ● how to operationalize their alignment?
  16. 16. Humans implement this function mostly via narratives.
  17. 17. Views available in narratives agents have behaved agents usually behave agents should behave How occurrence description pattern description normative specification Why occurrence explanation behavioural mechanism norm-creating mechanism
  18. 18. Views available in narratives agents have behaved agents usually behave agents should behave How occurrence description pattern description normative specification Why occurrence explanation behavioural mechanism norm-creating mechanism ● From occurrence to pattern: generalization
  19. 19. Views available in narratives agents have behaved agents usually behave agents should behave How occurrence description pattern description normative specification Why occurrence explanation behavioural mechanism norm-creating mechanism ● From pattern to occurrence: instanciation c
  20. 20. Views available in narratives agents have behaved agents usually behave agents should behave How occurrence description pattern description normative specification Why occurrence explanation behavioural mechanism norm-creating mechanism ● A mechanism entails, via its execution path, an observable pattern → patterns are abstractions of mechanisms (cf. declarative vs procedural programming) .. but mechanisms are still patterns of primitive actions!
  21. 21. Views available in narratives agents have behaved agents usually behave agents should behave How occurrence description pattern description normative specification Why occurrence explanation behavioural mechanism norm-creating mechanism ● Similarly an explanation confirms, via its execution path, a description of an occurrence
  22. 22. Views available in narratives agents have behaved agents usually behave agents should behave How occurrence description pattern description normative specification Why occurrence explanation behavioural mechanism norm-creating mechanism ● Explanation of an occurrence is made in terms of behavioural mechanisms or normative mechanisms
  23. 23. Views available in narratives agents have behaved agents usually behave agents should behave How occurrence description pattern description normative specification Why occurrence explanation behavioural mechanism norm-creating mechanism ● Norms circumscribe (with duties, prohibitions) or enable (with powers) certain behavioural mechanisms, defining what is correct/wrong, possible/impossible.
  24. 24. Some examples..
  25. 25. Occurrence description: a sale ● Occurrences can be seen as event logs.
  26. 26. Pattern description: a sale ● In respect to occurrences, patterns introduce abstractions of references, and partial ordering.
  27. 27. Normative specification: a sale
  28. 28. Normative specification: a sale ● A sale contract is issued after a double promise..
  29. 29. Normative specification: a sale ● A sale contract is issued after a double promise generating duties.
  30. 30. Normative specification: a sale ● Normative specifications accounting duties introduce satisfaction and violation branches.
  31. 31. Agent-role script: a buyer
  32. 32. commitment: driver for behaviour Agent-role script: a buyer
  33. 33. affordance enabler of behaviour Agent-role script: a buyer
  34. 34. actions account also monitoring Agent-role script: a buyer
  35. 35. monitoring introduces additional commitents and failures Agent-role script: a buyer
  36. 36. Alignment problem ● How to check whether two models are compatible? – that a certain occurrence goes under a given pattern? – that a mechanism produces a certain pattern? – that a pattern complies with a normative specification? – that a mechanism complies with a normative specification?
  37. 37. Alignment? ● The transformations of physical or abstract entities preserving (part of) the original structure are called morphisms.
  38. 38. Alignment? ● The transformations of physical or abstract entities preserving (part of) the original structure are called morphisms. ● The most elementary form of morphism is homomorphism,which consists in embedding the source structure into the target one, in a way that all the relations holding in the source are present in the target as well. (~ subsumption)
  39. 39. Alignment? ● The transformations of physical or abstract entities preserving (part of) the original structure are called morphisms. ● The most elementary form of morphism is homomorphism,which consists in embedding the source structure into the target one, in a way that all the relations holding in the source are present in the target as well. (~ subsumption) ● This is a too strong constraint when we can focus just on system behaviour.
  40. 40. Alignment? ● The literature presents intermediate notions, amongst which simulation, and then bisimilarity, trying to capture the notion of ‘behavioral sameness’.
  41. 41. Alignment? ● The literature presents intermediate notions, amongst which simulation, and then bisimilarity, trying to capture the notion of ‘behavioral sameness’. ● This notion does not fit our problem, as one model presents events which are not in the other.
  42. 42. Alignment? A complementary approach is log-based analysis, highly tolerant of incomplete knowledge and visibility on the environment, based on e.g. replay fitness.
  43. 43. Alignment? A complementary approach is log-based analysis, highly tolerant of incomplete knowledge and visibility on the environment, based on e.g. replay fitness. ● Recent works compute fitness in linear time, based on a hierarchy of single-entry-single-exit (SESE) components.
  44. 44. Preliminary solution Hybrid approach ● extraction of all execution paths ,
  45. 45. Preliminary solution Hybrid approach ● extraction of all execution paths , ●
  46. 46. Conclusion ● The paper can be seen as a preliminary attempt to investigate a general alignment in our field.
  47. 47. Conclusion ● The paper can be seen as a preliminary attempt to investigate a general alignment in our field. ● Today, this topic is tackled down differently according the discipline:
  48. 48. Conclusion ● The paper can be seen as a preliminary attempt to investigate a general alignment in our field. ● Today, this topic is tackled down differently according the discipline: – semantic ontology alignment typically overlooks the mechanism perspective, focusing on static structures.
  49. 49. Conclusion ● The paper can be seen as a preliminary attempt to investigate a general alignment in our field. ● Today, this topic is tackled down differently according the discipline: – semantic ontology alignment typically overlooks the mechanism perspective, focusing on static structures. – process alignment neglects to deal with ontological commitments, and epistemic considerations.
  50. 50. Conclusion ● In practice, however, any ontology aiming to represent aspects of the real world will always require both. ● It is therefore crucial to find a diplomatic truce between the two views, at least for operational reasons.

×