Conference presentation. See publication in: E. Schweighofer, F. Kummer, W. Hötzendorfer, G. Borges (eds.) Networks. Proceedings of the 19th International Legal Informatics Symposium IRIS 2016, 25–27 February 2016, Salzburg, pp. 83–92. OCG, Vienna. ISBN 978-3-903035-09-6. Also in online journal Jusletter IT, Die Zeitschrift für IT und Recht, 25 February 2016, ISSN 1664-848X, Editions Weblaw, http://jusletter-it.weblaw.ch/issues/2016/IRIS.html. ABSTRACT. This paper concerns the legal system and legal documentation, as well as their interconnectedness. In the term metalevel, we use the prefix meta with the meaning of with and across and not beyond. The granularity problem is in our view. Legal documentation does not reproduce a legal source one-to-one. Examples of legal metalevels are legal terms, ontologies, annotations, commentaries, etc. We see a challenge for legal informatics to represent legal networks explicitly. We find the idea of a network in the interdisciplinary approach that was proposed by Van Hoecke and Ost in 1993. We project the core and peripheral areas around the legal system onto Schweighofer’s 8 views/4 methods approach. Making the core-periphery networks more explicit would also contribute to the evaluative synthesis of legal decisions. Thus, explicit visual navigation through a legal information system would support the wandering back and forth of the glance between the normative and the factual.

1. Network of Legal Metalevels
International Legal Informatics Symposium (IRIS 2016), Salzburg, 25-27.02.2016
Friedrich LACHMAYER
Vienna and the University of Innsbruck
Vytautas ČYRAS
Vilnius University
Erich Schweighofer
University of Vienna

2. 1. Introduction
2

3. Examples of legal metalevels
• ‘Meta’ means ‘with’ (German mit)
– Not ‘higher’ or ‘beyond’
• Metalevel = an additional system
• Examples:
– Legal terms (legally indifferent substrate)
see Kelsen (1991)
– Legal ontologies, thesauri, taxonomies
– Commentaries, annotations
3

4. Theme 1: The granularity problem
4
Legal system
Legal source
Legal documentation
Document 1
Document 2
Document n
…
• Small documentation entities increase metadata
• Different metalevels in
– The legal system
– The legal documentation system

5. Theme 2: Core and periphery
5

6. Theme 3: Shift from hierarchy to network
6
• Unity by Kelsen:
a lower norm conforms
with a higher norm.
“No one can serve two masters”
• Two kinds of relations
between legal orders
– either independence
(even indifference)
– or integration
• no co-ordination
• no co-operation
• Deregulation
– A consequence of the Welfare State
– Post the “Rule of Law” State
• Multidisciplarity
– pluralist perspective to legal science
(Van Hoecke, van de Kerchove, Ost)
Basic
norm
Constitution
Law
Decision
State law
Sub-state law
International lawCorporative law
Foreign law
Higher law
Subordinate law
linear
Decision
(case law)
Norm
circular

7. Theme 4: Schweighofer’s approach
7
My question:
Is this classification complete?

8. 2. Shift from hierarchy
to a network
8

9. What is the shape of a network?
Network = (semiformal) system or (formal) graph?
9
Pyramid
?
• Inverted pyramid
– American realists
– Multiple distant sources of law flow
into the singular decision by the judge
• From tree to trellis
• Tangled hierarchy
• Strange loops

10. In exactly what sense is law a system?
• A system of norms, concepts, institutions, branches,
principles, and values?
• Forest ≠ set of trees
• System (van de Kerchove & Ost 1994):
1. Set of elements (components)
• Uniting, Greek systēma, assemblage
• Elements can be subsystems
2. Relations
• Organized totality (integration principle)
• Bonds of interdependence, interaction, solidarity
3. Unity (i.e. cohesion)
• Determines the system’s structure
• Negative aspect of differentiation from the exterior
• Positive aspect of identity
• Possesses properties that are not reducible to those of its elements
10

11. Question: what is ‘metalevel’?
• Metalevel = an additional system
• Is ‘metalevel’ a subsystem
of the system?
– Seeking an answer in the book
Van de Kerchove & Ost 1994
11

12. Question:
Is ‘metalevel’ a row in a matrix?
12
Metalevel 1
Metalevel 2
Metalevel 3
Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Domain 4
‘Metalevel’ = a level of infrastructural services
for several domains?
s1
s2 s3
s4 s1
s1
s4s4 s3
s2s3 s2

13. Question: Is ‘metalevel’ a horizontal
view of the player?
Zachman framework
13
• Horizontally:
different
descriptions of the
system—all from the
same player's
perspective
• Vertically:
a single focus, but
change the player
from whose
perspective we are
viewing that focus

14. 3. Schweighofer’s
approach
14

15. 4 views by Lu & Conrad (2013)
15
The set of evidence (views) used by modern legal search engines,
http://blog.law.cornell.edu/voxpop/2013/03/28/next-generation-legal-search-
its-already-here/

16. 1. Document view
• Documents of traditional legal searches
– Cases, briefs, statutes, regulations, law
reviews and other forms of primary and
secondary (analytical) legal publications
• Norms, court decisions and legal literature
– ‘Soft law’
16
2. Annotation view

17. 3. Citation view
• Out-bound (cited) sources with respect to the
document in question
• In-bound (citing) sources
Citations are different:
– basis of the act
– acts cited in the document
– citations in the operative part of the judgment
– document amending other documents
– document is amended by other acts, etc
17

18. 5. Logical view
• Is based on predicate logic
• Legal rules
– e.g. in rOWLer, a rule engine by Scharf (2015)
in JAVA and OWL 2
• Business rules management systems
– e.g. JBoss Enterprise BRMS
• Restricted to “standard cases” leaving
hard cases to the argumentation view
18

19. 6. Ontological view
• Legal ontologies
• Shared vocabularies
• Advanced thesauri
• Concepts and relations
19

20. 4. Terminology of
viewing
20

21. My terminology of viewing
21
Question:
Is my concept of viewij identical to the concept of
‘view’ by Schweighofer (i.e. by Conrad & Lu)?

22. Schweighofer’s approach as a lense
22

23. Conclusions
• Is a complete list of metalevels possible?
– Variety of legal tasks
– Are classification criteria practical or thoretical?
• Subsystems in a legal documentation system?
– Software engineer’s view
• Variety of software systems serve the legal system
• Classification criteria for subsystems?
– Data
• Legal sources, databases of legal terms,
national registers, etc.
– Metadata, users, etc.
• I presented an exploratory research
23

24. Thank You
Vytautas.Cyras@mif.vu.lt
24
F. Lachmayer, www.legalvisualization.com,
http://jusletter-it.weblaw.ch/visualisierung/
E. Schweighofer, http://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at