See publication in: E. Schweighofer, F. Kummer, W. Hötzendorfer (eds.) Co-operation. Proceedings of the 18th International Legal Informatics Symposium IRIS 2015, 26–28 February 2015, Salzburg, pp. 447–454. OCG, Vienna. ISBN 978-3-85403-309-7. Also in online journal Jusletter IT, Die Zeitschrift für IT und Recht, February 2015, ISSN 1664-848X, Editions Weblaw, http://jusletter-it.weblaw.ch/issues/2015/IRIS.html. ABSTRACT. In this paper, we investigate picture-text cooperation in lettering that explains the figures of selected scientific articles in the legal domain. As samples, we survey the structured diagrams, including the logical pictures, from JURIX papers. We see the need for picture-text cooperation in the joint work of engineers and jurists. A motive is that engineers think structurally, whereas jurists think textually. However, we see no uniform framework for picture-text cooperation in legal visualizations. Therefore, this is a subject for discussion. We hold that a unified visual notation, strict compositional rules and strict visual semantics in law are not easy to achieve. Here, semi-formal representations are stronger, because representing legal meaning is a problem. However, more formal visual notations could contribute toward the creation of logical pictures.

1. Picture-Text Cooperation:
Lettering in Legal Visualization
IRIS 2015, International Legal Informatics Symposium, Salzburg, 26-28.02.2015
Friedrich LACHMAYER
Vienna and University of Innsbruck
Vytautas ČYRAS
Vilnius University
Kristina LAPIN
Vilnius University

2. 1. Introduction
2

3. Repertoire in lettering
• Formulations
– words
– sentences
– abbreviations
– signs
• Formatting
• Figure caption
• Etc.
3
Sample figure from JURIX 2012
by Buchanan et al.

4. 2. Types and instances
4

5. Graphics-text cooperation:
types and instances
• types
• instances
5
instance2instance1
slot1
Sample figure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%E2%80%93relationship_model
slot2 slot3

6. Intension and extension
6
Not to be confused with intention or intentionality,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intension
Intension Extension
Concept
• Set of properties
• Type
• Language level
• Language
• Set of instances
• Class
• Sentence level
• Parlance
instance1
slot1
instance2
slot2 slot3

7. Intensional definition and
extensional definition
• An intensional definition – specifying all the
properties
– bachelor is 'unmarried man'.
• The extensional definition – listing of all the
unmarried men in the world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensional_definition
Roy T. Cook (2009) Intensional Definition.
In: A Dictionary of Philosophical Logic.
7

8. 3. Legal meanings
8

9. Legal meanings –
the object of legal visualization
• K. Röhl and S.Ulbrich
„Recht anschaulich“, 2007
– Logical pictures (logische Bilder)
• H.-G. Fill “Visualisation for semantic
information systems”, 2009
– Business informatics
9
• Knowledge visualization vs. information visualization

10. 4. UML and legal
meanings
10

11. Does UML suit to
visualize legal meanings?
• UML is a general-purpose (modeling) language
• W. Kahlig „Rechtsmodellierung im e-Government“, 2008
• UML diagrams visualize system’s architectural blueprints
– System’s elements such as
• Activities (jobs)
• Components
• How the system will run
• How the system is expected to be used
See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language
11
Pro arguments:

12. Contra arguments
• UML is used in software engineering, not law
– Visualizing the design of a system
• Legal meanings ≠ software
• Lachmayer’s visualizations are not targeted
at the design of a system (software)
12
– Understanding law
– Legal education
• Different semantics
– Relations
– Imagination

13. 4. Legal relations
13

14. A, B, C legal terms NORM N(A→B)
14
Story-telling
a
Report
Natural language
Professional language
Decision = legal act
= official version of the story
a == A
Story-telling
Interpretation
Subsumption 1:
terminological
Subsumption 2:
normative

15. Classifying relations
• Vinculum juris between persons
• Relation between things
• Subsumption
• Strong and weak relations
– strong and weak permission
• In legal thesauruses
• synonymy, near synonymy, antonymy,
hyperonymy/hyponymy, implemented_as
[Schweighofer, LOIS project]
15

16. Historical remarks
• Ulrich Klug (1982): R(A,B)
• What is new?
– To give a name to R
– Direction in asymmetric relations
• A R→ B e.g. right, employee, self-defence
• A ←R B e.g. duty, employer
• Different sorts:
16
A B A BR
Causality
Imputation, goal, dolus
General relation, context

17. Relation in mathematics
• A relation R over the sets X1, …, Xn is a subset
of their Cartesian product, R ⊆ X1 × … × Xn
• Example. R: X thinks that Y likes Z,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_(logic)
X1= X2 = X3 = X = { Alice, Bob, Charles, Denise }
17
Person A Person B Person C
Alice Bob Denise
Charles Alice Bob
Charles Charles Alice
Denise Denise Denise

18. Extensional relational structure (D, R)
Definition. An extensional relational
structure is a tuple (D, R) where
– D is a set called the universe of discourse
– R is a set of relations on D
[Guarino, Oberle, Staab 2009] What is an
Ontology? In Handbook on Ontologies,
Staab, Studer (eds.)
18

19. Example
19
D = {I1, I2, I3, I4}

20. Kinds of relations in law
20
Finality
(telos, teleology)
Causality
Compliance
 
Non-compliance,
contradiction, conflict

21. Explicit/implicit, direct/indirect
21
explizit implizit
direct
TERTIUM COMPARATIONIS
indirect

22. Simple and legally qualified
relations
• Simple:
• Legally qualified:
– E.g. in a judgement:
22
A B
is-a
– A court established the fact that A caused B:
Fact( A B )
causa

23. Symbolization
• R(A,B)
• Institutional relations
23
part
whole
Takashi Izumo, HOZO
A
B
is-a
Norm( )
ought
Norm( )
if A then B
– E.g. delict
Norm( )
fact
– Fact as a relation
– Obligation

24. Thank you
Vytautas.Cyras@mif.vu.lt
24
F. Lachmayer see www.legalvisualization.com,
http://jusletter-it.weblaw.ch/visualisierung/