Presentation at the RULES 2013 conference, Krakow. Publication: V. Čyras, F. Lachmayer (2015) Towards multidimensional rule visualizations. In: M. Araszkiewicz, P. Banaś, T. Gizbert-Studnicki, K. Płeszka (eds.) Problems of Normativity, Rules and Rule-Following, Law and Philosophy Library 111, pp. 445–455, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-09375-8_33. Springer, ISBN 978-3-319-09374-1. ABSTRACT: This paper reviews visualizations in legal informatics. We focus on the transition from traditional rule-based linear textual representation such as “if A then B” to two- and three-dimensional ones and films. A methodology of visualization with the thought pattern of tertium comparationis can be attributed to Arthur Kaufmann. A tertium visualization aims at a mental bridge between different languages. We explore how visualizations are constructed and what types can be found here. Review criteria comprise comprehension, relations, vertical-horizontal arrangement, time-space structure, the focus of attention, education, etc. Pictures for review are selected from JURIX 2012 proceedings. We conclude that making visualizations as avant-garde as JURIX projects themselves is a tough task that requires knowledge of law, computing, media and semiotics. 1. Introduction This paper reviews visualizations in legal informatics by asking the question “How is multidimensionality exploited?”. There are multiple criteria to review and in turn different means to achieve multidimensionality in visualizations: colours (including black-white-grey), mixed types of graphical elements, 1D-2D-2½D-3D, quantity-quality, statistics, etc. The mainstream of the visualization in law, legal science and legal informatics can be determined with reference to JURIX, the Dutch Foundation for Legal Knowledge-Based Systems and its annual conference proceedings. On the one hand there are formal notations, which go beyond the textual ones; on the other hand, there are visual representations that also occur in competition with the text. In the visualizations in turn two different types can be distinguished: first, the visualizations formed according to strict formal rules; second, the more intuitive pictures which can detect situations better. A very good overview of legal visualization can be found in the book of Klaus Röhl and Stefan Ulbrich (2007). There are also quite different approaches to visualization, for instance, through semiotics (Fig. 1). The classical philosophy of law, however, as approximately represented by Arthur Kaufmann (see Lachmayer 2005), has provided a methodological introduction to visualization with the thought pattern of tertium comparationis. Especially in the European Union with its many official languages, a visualization, which appears as a tertium, can form a mental bridge between different languages. File 20130926-RULES2013-Cyras-Lachmayer-slides.pdf

1. Vytautas ČYRAS
Vilnius University
Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics
Vilnius, Lithuania
Vytautas.Cyras@mif.vu.lt
Friedrich LACHMAYER
Vienna and Innsbruck
(University of Innsbruck, Faculty of Law)
Innsbruck, Austria)
Friedrich.Lachmayer@uibk.ac.at
Towards Multidimensional
Rule Visualizations
RULES 2013, 27-29 September 2013, Krakow

2. 1.
Introduction
2

3. “Clare et distincte”
• Visualization refers to clear knowledge
3

4. 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/publi
cations/CRBrunschwigLawisNotorMustNotBeJustV
erbalandVisualinthe21stCenturycolor.pdf
4

5. Legal machine
5
Condition
• human being
• machine
Actor
Legal
actor
Action Effect
Legal
action
Legal
effect
Legal
condition
• Raw fact
• Institutional fact

6. Building a bridge in legal informatics
6
Bridge
Legal
text
Program
Compliance
Law enforcement,
implementation

7. Multiphase Transformation
approach
7
Legal
text

8. 2.
Types of
multidimensionality
8

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 3D and films
• 3D: a statue
• Films
– Menzi-Muck-timber case – the Film!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI7zeuayum4
– www.telejura.de
12

13. 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

14. 3.
Visualizations
in JURIX 2012
proceedings
14

15. “Refined coherence as constraint satisfaction
framework for representing judicial reasoning”
(Araszkiewicz & Šavelka)
15Figure 1. Constraint network for conversion claim in Popov v. Hayashi case (p. 8)

16. “Computational data protection law”
(Buchanan et al.)
16Figure 1. Overview of the architecture (p. 36)

17. “The e-Codex project” (Francesconi)
17
Figure 1. (a) High level architecture (b) Message routing (p. 43)

18. Francesconi (2)
18
Figure 2. Relations between Domain and Document Model (p. 47)

19. “Argument analysis system with
factor annotation” (Kubosawa et al.)
19
Figure 4. Graphical model representation of semi supervised LDA
(linear discriminant analysis) (p. 66)

20. “An argumentation model of
evidential reasoning” (Liang & Wei)
20
Figure 1. Inference graph and argument graph (p. 74)

21. “Formalising a legal opinion on a legislative
proposal in the ASPIC+ framework” (Prakken)
21Figure 1. The reconstruction (p. 127)

22. 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

23. Thank you
Vytautas.Cyras@mif.vu.lt Friedrich.Lachmayer@uibk.ac.atVytautas.Cyras@mif.vu.lt 23