ChapterPDF Available

Modeling and visualization in law: Past, present and future

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Communication between legal experts and laypersons takes place in many contexts related to law: contracts, for example. Visualization can support the communication and mitigate its barriers. In the field of legal visualization different approaches have been discussed, but a common language and standards are missing. This paper aims to identify the status quo of existing approaches and determine directions for the future. It is based on a literature review on IRIS proceedings (1998-2016) to identify the trajectory of the field and a Delphi study to derive trends for research and practice.
Content may be subject to copyright.
MODELING AND VISUALIZATION IN LAW:
PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
Thorsten Schoormann / Ralf Knackstedt / Helena Haapio
Research Assistant, University of Hildesheim, Department for Information Systems
Universitätsplatz 1, 31141 Hildesheim, GER
thorsten.schoormann@uni-hildesheim.de; http://www.bwl.uni-hildesheim.de
Professor of Information Systems, University of Hildesheim, Department for Information Systems
Universitätsplatz 1, 31141 Hildesheim, GER
ralf.knackstedt@uni-hildesheim.de; http://www.bwl.uni-hildesheim.de
Associate Professor of Business Law, University of Vaasa/International Contract Counsel, Lexpert Ltd
Pohjoisranta 20, 00170 Helsinki, FI
Helena.Haapio@lexpert.com; http://www.lexpert.com
Keywords: Future Trends, Conceptual Modeling, Visualization, Legal Design, Contract Design,
Delphi Study, Literature Review
Abstract: Communication between legal experts and laypersons takes place in many contexts related to
law: contracts, for example. Visualization can support the communication and mitigate its
barriers. In the field of legal visualization different approaches have been discussed, but a
common language and standards are missing. This paper aims to identify the status quo of
existing approaches and determine directions for the future. It is based on a literature review
on IRIS proceedings (1998-2016) to identify the trajectory of the field and a Delphi study to
derive trends for research and practice.
1. Introduction
Conceptual models and visualizations aim to support the creation of a common ground for communication
[KUNG/SOLVBERG 1986]. Law, in particular, needs a common ground because the meaning of law should be
accessible to those who use it or are impacted by it [CURTOTTI 2016]. Thus, the interest in visual elements
such as diagrams and icons has increased [BERGER-WALLISER/BARTON/HAAPIO 2017]. Nowadays, visualiza-
tions can be found in places where they did not exist a few years ago such as textbooks, deal documents and
legal education materials. However, sets of consistent diagram constructs (e. g. symbols) and guidelines (e. g.
how to use them) are still missing [CONBOY 2014]. The multidisciplinarity in the field of modeling and visu-
alizing law or contracts is challenging. It is affected by different disciplines such as information systems, in-
formation design and, of course, law [CURTOTTI 2016]. This paper aims to identify (a) the status quo of existing
approaches as well as (b) further directions for this field. The findings can be used by researchers and practi-
tioners to, for example, position their research, derive new research questions and improve approaches.
Our paper is structured as follows: In section 2, we outline our research approach, which consists of a literature
review (status quo) and a Delphi study (future). In section 3, we review the IRIS proceedings (1998-2016) to
identify the status quo of modeling and visualization in law. In section 4, we cover questions which were
evaluated by up to 26 experts in a Delphi study with two rounds. In section 5, we conclude with our findings.
2. Research Method
Literature review. To identify and classify the status quo of modeling and visualization in law we conducted
a literature review. An important factor is the rigor of the search process. Therefore, researchers have to doc-
ument findings, the selection of keywords and the evaluation of the results. Due to the methodological rigor of
literature reviews, we followed [VOM BROCKE/ET AL. 2009]: definition of review scope (section 1), conceptu-
alization of topic (section 3.1), literature search, analysis and synthesis (section 4.1.).
Delphi study. A Delphi study is a survey-approach with experts to derive implications for future trends. It
aims to move the study participants towards a consensus or a saturation of new findings. A series of linked
questionnaires can be employed in successive rounds. A Delphi study is mostly applied in interdisciplinary
research fields if future predictions are difficult to derive (e. g. [DELBECQ/VAN DE VEN/GUSTAFSON 1975]).
Figure 1: Research process and methods
3. Literature Review
3.1. Conceptualization
To classify the literature and provide evaluation criteria to assess the relevance of the articles, domain-specific
concepts are required. Based on [KNACKSTEDT/HEDDIER/BECKER 2014] we determined following concepts:
Development of methods and tools (I). The first sector deals with the development of visualization/modeling
techniques and supporting software tools. For example, method engineering (1.1) to develop and extending
modeling methods to support the creation and application of law or contracts; meta modeling (1.2) to design
and adapt modeling techniques to support the creation and application of law or contracts;
Construction of models (II). Secondly, approaches that can support the construction. For example, multiper-
spective modeling (2.1) to design model variants of law or contracts and provide views for different stakehold-
ers; modeling software (2.2) to support the process of the design and creation of law or contracts.
Application of models (III). Thirdly, the use of models. For example, model based reference modeling (3.1)
to provide guidelines (e. g. design pattern) and to reuse best practices for creating and designing law or con-
tracts; version control (3.2) to manage different versions (e. g. historical overview) of law and contracts as
well as support the reconstruction of relevant versions; argumentation-based modeling (3.3) to support collab-
orative creation and interpretation of law or contracts (integrating reasons for specific elements); transfor-
mation (3.4) to create law and contracts based on models or create models based on law and contracts.
Evaluation of models (IV). Fourthly, evaluation (4) of existing or new approaches to indicate which are prac-
tical and applicable. For example, identifying whether an efficient and effective construction of a model is
given (e. g. costs and time) or if it is “easy to read and understand” (e. g. comprehensive and traceable).
3.2. Analysis und Synthesis
Literature Search. Based on the conceptualization, we identified relevant articles which contribute to our
research purpose (“Rechtsvisualisierung” in particular). If an article met one or more of the concepts, we inte-
grated it into our analysis. We analyzed the entire IRIS proceedings (1998-2016). Before the symposium be-
came titled IRIS it was named “Internationales Rechtsinformatik Kolloquium” (1998-1999) and “Salzburger
Rechtsinformatik Gespräche” (2000-2001). The track “Rechtsvisualisierung” exists since 2005 (2002-2004 as
„Visualisierung“; later also including “Multisensory Law”). We checked the literature systematically by eval-
uating titles, keywords and abstracts as well as afterwards full texts. The analysis included articles of the
entire proceedings (all tracks).
FUTURE TRENDS: DELPHI STUDYSTATUS QUO: LITERATURE REVIEW
IRIS
1999-2016
(Topic-)
Concepts
Concept-
ualization (3.1)
CONCLUSION
(Topic-)
Concepts
Classification
of Literature
Analysis and
Synthesis (3.2)
(Topic-)
Concepts
Expert
Survey I
Survey Con-
struction (4.1)
Statements/
Rankings (I/II)
Classification
of Literature
Classification
of Literature
Agenda/
Trends
Conclusion (5)
Statements/
Rankings (I/II)
Data Collection/
Analysis I/II (4.2)
Expert
Survey (I/II)
Expert
Survey (I/II)
TIME
IN-/OUTPUTS
Results. In total, we identified a total of 180 relevant articles. After collecting the articles, we classified them
according to the conceptualization to present the status quo (Table 1). We distinguished between: “motivation”
(does the article argue that this concept is important?), development” (does the article develop this concept?)
and “application” (does the article apply this concept?). We included papers which (a) analyze how a model
or visualization can be created, (b) analyze how it should look like or (c) use schematic representations.
Concepts
Concept use in IRIS
Method engineering (1.1)
Motivation (48)
Development (12)
Application (80)
Model/visualization type (1.1)
Process (42)
Other (83)
Comic (11)
Meta modeling (1.2)
Motivation (4)
Construction (1)
Application (4)
Multiperspective modeling (2.1)
Motivation (0)
Development (0)
Application (0)
Modeling software (2.2)
Motivation (8)
Development (5)
Application (6)
Reference modeling (3.1)
Motivation (12)
Development (6)
Application (0)
Version control (3.2)
Motivation (0)
Development (0)
Application (0)
Argumentation-based modeling (3.3)
Motivation (0)
Development (0)
Application (0)
Transformation (3.4)
Motivation (4)
Development (3)
Application (0)
Evaluation (4)
Motivation (8)
Development (2)
Application (8)
1-5
11-50
>50
Table 1: Results of literature analysis
As Table 1 indicates, a number of the selected articles deal with modeling or visualizing law, legal documents
or contracts. About 42 of them focused on representing processes, for example, by using common notations
such as Business Process Management Notation (e. g. [NIEMAND/SPECK 2016]) or Event Driven Process
Chains. This can be related to prior IRIS tracks which included topics such as process- and knowledge man-
agement. Further visualization techniques deal with comics (e. g. [WALSER KESSEL 2013]) mind maps (e. g.
[SAUERWALD 2007]), decision diagrams (e. g. [KAHLIG 2011]) or ontologies for semantic analysis or
knowledge representation (e. g. [IZUMO 2013]). A few software prototypes such as the “Contract Design Pat-
tern Library” [HAAPIO/HAGAN 2016] and reference modeling approaches (e. g. [BRÜGGEMEIER/DOVIFAT
2005]) are presented. Only a limited number of articles were found which address aspects of meta modeling
(e. g [FILL/HAIDEN 2016]), model transformation (e. g. [OFF/HORN/LENK 2006]) or evaluation of techniques,
models or visualizations (e. g. [BRUNSCHWIG 2002] [HEDDIER/KNACKSTEDT 2013]).
4. Delphi Study
4.1. Study Settings
Hypothesis development. First of all based on the findings of the literature review we derived implications
and hypothesis of topics which can be considered in the future. The most suitable ones were selected.
Expert selection. Secondly, we determined different expert groups which, here, are related to the fields of
information design, contract design, conceptual modeling/information systems and (general) law.
Data collection (I). Thirdly, we conducted an online survey. The concepts (section 3.1) were introduced and
presented for ranking (1 not agree to 5 strong agree). Furthermore, we asked for chronological prioritization
of the concepts. We distinguished between “short-term” (<=1 years), “medium-term” (about 1-5 years) and
“long-term” (> 5 years) to determine which concepts should be considered first. The participants could assign
a total of 100 points (100 = important). (Figure 2). Finally, we asked: “What else could be helpful? What do
you suggest?” Afterwards, we invited experts from the determined fields to participate in the study.
Data collection (II). In round 2, we presented the results to the experts involved in round 1 to confirm them.
Analysis. Finally, the answers were analyzed in a descriptive and quantitative manner (section 4.2).
Figure 2: Survey (questions and concepts)
4.2. Analysis and Results
Data collection (I). Our online-survey was online from October 2016 to November 2016. In total 31 experts
participated and 26 of them finished completely incomplete ones were not analyzed. Overview of experts:
Sector: Research and science (46.12%); Practice (38.46%); other (7.69%).
Discipline: Information Systems (15.38%); Information Design (11.54%); Contract Design
(15.38%); Law (26.92%); Other (23.08%) (e. g. knowledge management or engineering).
Work Experience: <=1 (7.69%); 1-3 (3.85%); 4-7 (11.54%); 8-10 (3.85%); >=11 (65.38%).
Hence, we had base of experts with a lot of work experience and a fair balance between different disciplines.
Data collection (II). Our second survey which aimed to confirm the results from round 1 was online in De-
cember 2016. 21 experts (round one) provided their email address. In total, 14 experts took part in round 2.
Rankings. In Figure 3, the results from round 1 (R1) and round 2 (R2) are presented. We distinguished: (I)
discipline Information Systems (IS) (n=5), Contract Design (CD) (n=4), Information Design (ID) (n=3) and
Law/Jurisprudence (n=8); (II) sector (P) (n=12) and research (R) (n=13); (III) total.
#
Survey (Questions and Concepts)
1.1
Developing visual techniques
Visual techniques support the creation of diagrams (e. g. flow-charts or process
models) by providing guidelines, how and which elements can be used in a specific diagram. For example, a process
technique describes which icons can be used to create a process diagram or flow
-chart. Do you think we need to
extend or develop (new) techniques for visualizing law or contracts?
1.2
Developing rules for diagrams
Rules describe fundamental linguistic constructs and their relationships as well as
the visual representation of language constructs by assigning a set of symbols. These rules aim to achieve consistent
visualizations. For example, rules that describe the main concepts of a process diagram (e. g. tasks and events) and
the manner of using them in order to create a new diagram. Do you think that specifying rules can be helpful for
visualizing law or contracts?
2.1
Distinguishing between role
-specific variants of diagrams People with different roles (e. g. man-agers, laypersons,
software engineers or lawyers) often use a law or contract for different purposes. Although all of these stakeholders
have different views on laws or contracts, the fundamental source of information remains the same. For example,
process model variants which describe an employment
-contract-content for (a) employees and (b) employers - two
models. Do you think role
-specific variants are helpful for visualizing law or contracts?
2.2
Using software for create diagrams
Software can support the creation of law or contracts, for example, by
providing predefined elements. For example, flow
-
chart elements such as activities, roles, events and icons which can
be applied to create a flow
-chart. Do you think that there are (acceptance-)barriers in the use of software to create
diagrams of contracts or law?
3.1
Applying reusable building blocks
Reusable and universally applicable building blocks (e. g. diagram parts) usually
describe best practice structures or concepts of specific domains which can be adapted and used in further contexts.
For example, contract templates, visual contract blocks or diagram sections that can be reused in new visualizations.
Do you think that the specification of reusable building blocks is important for visualizing contracts or law?
3.2
Managing the history of diagrams
Different versions of law or contracts play important roles in the legal domain.
For example, documenting reasons which led to a change of a diagram (e. g. a flow
-chart). Do you think that the
history (versions and releases) of diagrams should be managed to improve the traceability of law or contracts?
3.3
Documenting the chain of reasoning of diagrams
It is important for a legislator, contract designer or law-
interpreting person to know the rationale behind a certain norm, contract or law. For example, Person A documents
why a flow
-chart of a specific work-sequence (contract) has changed by adding relevant reasons to the diagram.
Thus, Person B can trace why it has changed. Do you think that the integration of the chain of reasoning into
diagrams supports the understanding?
3.4
Transforming diagrams to diagrams
Transformation describes rules which can be applied to trans-form a specific
type of a diagram into another type. For example, an (automatically) transformation from a flow
-
chart to a comic or a
comic to a flow
-chart. Do you think that a transformation would be helpful for the visualization of law or contracts?
4
Evaluating diagrams
Evaluation verifies the effectiveness and efficiency of creating and understanding diagrams.
For example, is it easier to create a contract as a flow
-chart than a comic? Or, is it easier to understand a flow-chart
than a comic? Do you think that the evaluation of existing approaches for
visualizing contracts or law is important?
Figure 3: Rankings (M=Mean; SD=Standard deviation)
Best ranked concepts. Evaluation (4) was in both rounds ranked first (mean=4.46; 4.54). Method engineer-
ing (1.1) was ranked second and modeling software (2.2) third. In R1, reference modeling (3.1) was third
(mean=3.96), but using modeling software increased from 3.48 to 4.15 in R2.
Major differences between round 1 and 2. Modeling software (2.2) had the biggest difference increased from
3.48 to 4.15 (+0.67). Version control (3.2) had differences from -0.29 and method engineering (2.1) +0.23.
Overall, each concept was rated with a mean between 3.31 and 4.54 and a median between 3 and 5. Hence,
some concepts especially evaluation (4) were rated higher, but none of them seem absolutely unimportant.
Prioritizations. Secondly, we asked for chronological prioritization. The participants could assign a total of
100 points (100=important) to each concept and each time-category (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Prioritizations (M=Mean; SD=Standard deviation)
Concepts
Short-Term Medium-Term Long-Term Total
Mean R2
Mean
SD R2
(M/SD)
Mean
SD R2
(M/SD)
Mean
SD R2
(M/SD)
Method
engineering (1.1)
R1
32.36
22.43
23.19
27.38
15.95
21.44
R2
30
13.16
25
12.25
14.55
8.38
Meta
modeling (1.2)
R1
15.65
12.38
10.89
6.41
15.45
20.37
R2
15.45
7.52
12.54
7.15
14.55
8.11
Multiperspective
modeling
(2.1)
R1
5.59 3.63 8.16 4.78 8.8 4.06
R2
5.17 3.65 6.17 4.81 4.92 3.15
Modeling
software (2.2)
R1
17
10.33
16.95
9.94 13.7 8.5
R2
15.23
9.07
17.15
10.72
16.75
10.66
Reference
modeling (3.1)
R1
11.45
6.27
11.30
4.22 9.89 3.43
R2
10.62
10.9 9.75 8.3
11.83
6.84
Version
control (3.2)
R1
7.11 6.24
10.33
6.87
13.22
7.15
R2
4.91 5.12 9
10.29
6.91 5.57
Argumentation
-based
modeling (
3.3)
R1
7.11 6.48 9.78 6.17
11.67
6.39
R2
7.73 8.33 6.91 6.39
10.27
7.22
Transformation (
3.4)
R1
5 4.35 7.82 5.95 9.95 6.9
R2
33.05 4.91 5.55 8.18 9.31
Evaluation (4)
R1
16.26
11.81
15.1 8.82
14.35
10.53
R2
14.17
8.36
14.08
7.26
16.58
10.05
15-5 35 15-5 35 15-5 35
Concepts
Discipline
(Mean
, R1)
Sector
(Mean
, R1)
Total
IS
CD
ID
Law
P R R
Mean
Median
#
R1
(M/SD)
R2 (M/SD)
Method
engineering (1.1)
4.4
4.5
4.34
3.38
4 4.31 R1 4.08 4 2
#2 #2 #3 #7 #2 #2 R2 4.31 4 2
Meta
modeling (1.2)
4.8
3.5
3.67
3.13
3.17 4.15 R1 3.79 4 4
#1 #6 #5 #9 #8 #3 R2 3.92 4 4
Multiperspective
modeling
(2.1)
4.2
4.25
3
3.75
3.5 4R1 3.56 46
#4 #4 #9 #3 #6 #5 R2 3.31 3 8
Modeling
software (2.2)
3.4
3.75
4
3.63
3.67 3.54 R1 3.48 3 7
#8 #5 #4 #5 #4 #9 R2 4.15 4 3
Reference
modeling (3.1)
4.2
4.75
4.37
3.5
3.91 4.01 R1 3.96 4 3
#4 #1 #2 #6 #3 #4 R2 3.92 4 4
Version
control (3.2)
4.2
3
3.67
3.75
3.34 4 R1 3.60 3 5
#4 #8 #5 #3 #7 #5 R2 3.31 3 8
Argumentation
-based
modeling (
3.3)
3.6
3.25
3.67
4.13
3.67 3.62 R1 3.48 4 7
#7 #7 #5 #1 #4 #8 R2 3.46 4 6
Transformation (
3.4)
3.4
2.25
3.67
3.38
2.84 3.85 R1 3.38 3.5 9
#8 #9 #5 #7 #9 #7 R2 3.46 4 6
Evaluation (4)
4.4
4.5
5 4 4.34 4.54 R1 4.46 5 1
#2 #2 #1 #2 #1 #1 R2 4.54 5 1
M=Mean; SD=Standard deviation
4.0 4.03.0 5.03.0 5.0
Best ranked concepts (short-term). The by far best ranked concept in both rounds was method engineering
(1.1) (mean=32.36; 30). Then, modeling software (2.2), evaluation (4) and meta modeling (1.2) were approx-
imately the same. Evaluation and modeling software were reduced in round 2 thus, meta modeling increased.
Best ranked concepts (medium-term). Again, method engineering (1.2) took the first place, but it decreased
by -5. Modeling software (2.2) was ranked second and evaluation (4) third. But, evaluation had lower SD-
values than modeling software or method engineering so, the variation of answers was smaller.
Best ranked concepts (long-term). The long-term ratings were more balanced than the previous terms. The best
ranked concepts were modeling software (2.2) evaluation (4), method engineering (1.1) and meta modeling
(1.2), followed by reference modeling (3.1) (R2=11.83) and argumentation-based modeling (3.3) (R2=10.27).
Standard deviation (SD). The SD is used to quantify the amount of variation in collected data. Multiperspective
modeling (2.1) had across all three terms a low SD. Although meta modeling (1.2) and evaluation (4) had
higher means, they also had low SDs which indicates that the answers were more consolidated.
Major differences between round 1 and 2. The SD of method engineering (1.1) was reduced by -15.13 in
medium-term and long-term by -13.06 with constant means. Meta modeling (1.2) changed the long-term SD
by -12.26 and version control (3.2) the mean by +6.31. Overall, R2 helps to consolidate the ratings.
Qualitative data. The expert statements (“further concepts”) were categorized. We identified different topics:
Visualization: “[…] contract element and various visual tools”; “define interfaces – (…) techniques with
the aid of legal modeling language”; using multimedia
Evaluation: “How do we make sure that explanatory pictures, text (human readable) and computer code
(machine readable) all say the same thing?”; “integrate visual into computer code”; “a computer pro-
gram (…) be able to interpret the modelled rules? (…) interpretability of the same (…) for machines.
Tools: “[…] to create a visualization should have more tools available.; “[…] devices used for the
generation and visualization […] (e. g. Google Glasses)”
User Centred Design: “[…] developing them together with the users (…) studying how the users feel.
Standards vs. No-Standards: “[…] visualization of contracts is most important establish a standard
and then the rest can be implemented subsequently“; “Standard clauses and symbols”; “Conceptualiz-
ing contracts as data.”; “The use of open, not standardized visualization like sketching.
Role-specific understanding: “[…] specifically cultural differences in understanding.”
Modeling techniques: “Mind maps […]”; “Interactive Flowcharts may create more accurate depictions”
Design literacy: “Visual is not intrinsically better than text. So it is important that the creators of tools
as well as the users (…) still know what they are doing.”
5. Conclusion
5.1. Research Agenda
Different implications can be derived from our literature review and Delphi study, for example:
Evaluating approaches. Evaluation aims at demonstrating the utility, quality and efficacy of an artefact [HE-
VNER ET AL. 2004]. In general, evaluation frameworks distinguish between a development (build) and an in-
terpretation (read) perspective on both the process and the product (e. g. [SCHALLES 2013]). Although evalu-
ation is the most important concept for the future (expert survey, median: 5), only very few articles in IRIS
proceedings evaluate their artefacts (see 3.2). Thus, we recommend to conduct more evaluation-studies to
investigate which visualization-types or genres (e. g., comics) are suited for which audiences.
Developing modeling techniques. A number of experts especially designers and IS-researchers argued
that the development or extension of modeling techniques for the representation of law or contracts is important
for the future. According to the results (e. g., “standard clauses and symbols” [EXPERT 15] vs. “open, not
standardized” [EXPERT 26]) two different types of visualizations are discussed: (I) not-standardized images
and representations (e. g., comics) and (II) standardized techniques with a predefined set of symbols and shapes
(e. g. process modeling techniques such as BPMN). But, are they totally different? Further development of
techniques could try to link both worlds and investigate which potentials this link might have. Thereby, tech-
niques should consider, for example, deontic logic or time dependencies. IS-research provides method engi-
neering approaches which could structure the development process [KNACKSTEDT/HEDDIER/BECKER 2014].
Connecting disciplines. Due to the fact that visualizing law or contracts is an interdisciplinary field, a common
ground for the disciplines involved should be provided. However, the implementation and the analysis of our
study indicate some issues which need further research, for example, (a) inconsistent understandings of con-
cepts, (b) partly inconsistent wording of concepts (e. g. diagram vs. conceptual model) and (c) heterogeneous
assessments of relevance (especially by legal experts) (Figure 3). In the future, joint projects would be helpful.
Transferring knowledge between practice and research. In addition, a proper mixture of researchers and
practitioners is required, because of results variable, for example, meta modeling (practice: 3.1; research 4.15)
or model transformation (practice: 2.8; research 3.8) (Figure 3). This might indicate that some of these con-
cepts were not common and need further transfer to practice or research. For example, meta modeling supports
describing building blocks of a modeling technique including (a) fundament linguistic constructs and their
relations and (b) the process of creating a certain model. This contributes to the experts who argued that stand-
ard clauses and symbols” are required [EXPERT 15, R1]. Moreover, it can be used to (c) develop new tools
which support creation. This contributes to the need of tools “to create a visualization.”[EXPERT 4, R1].
Considering users. To create proper approaches, experts argued that we should develop “[…] them together
with the users, experimenting and studying how the users feel about them” [EXPERT 14, R1]. Furthermore,
“[…] cultural differences in understanding” [EXPERT 13, R1] should be considered. Although the concept got
poor rankings, these issues can be supported by multiperspective modeling which aims to design and manage
model variants for different stakeholders or purposes. In addition, it might contribute to experts who suggested
“understand more with different views for types of contracts” [EXPERT 13, R17]. Besides, argumentation-
based modeling can be applied to visualize the chain of reasoning of differences (e. g., cultural adaptions).
So, what next? First of all (short-term), new modeling and visualization techniques (1.1) can be developed or
extended for the field of law or contracts. Moreover, software tools (2.2) should be provided which supports
the creation and management of models and visualizations. Therefore, meta modeling (1.2) can be considered
to describe notations in a formal way. Along with design patterns, they can support the development of mod-
eling and visualization tools as well as their applicability. After developing new methods and tools (medium-
term), they have to be evaluated (4) in order to investigate which ones are efficient and effective. These find-
ings, in turn, can be applied to redesign existing approaches. In the long-term, further approaches can be ad-
dressed such as reference modeling (3.1) to specify reusable building blocks (e. g., contract blocks with ac-
companying icons or visualizations) or transformation (3.4) to enable transforming specific diagram types into
other types. Their generation can be supported by new tools, and evaluation of both remains important.
5.2. Limitations
The Delphi study assumes that experts are able to provide knowledge for future trends. The selection of experts
and the derivation trends are based on interpretations, decisions and methods which have limitations (e. g.
other experts could provide new information). Moreover, some experts participated only in the first round
which impacts the analysis. The literature review is limited to IRIS proceedings. Further articles could provide
further information. The selection of keywords and evaluation criteria is based on the researcher’s decisions.
We initially focused on the identified concepts (see 3.1) other aspects could be analyzed, for example, model
analysis to prevent defective law design or to ensure legal compliance (e. g. [DELFMANN ET AL. 2009]).
Acknowledgements. We like to thank the experts who supported the study and its implementation.
6. References
BERGER-WALLISER, GERLINDE/BARTON, THOMAS D./HAAPIO, HAAPIO, From visualization to legal design: A collabora-
tive and creative process. In: American Business Law Journal, Vol. 54(2), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2841030, 2017.
BROCKE, JAN VOM/SIMONS, ALEXANDER/NIEHAVES, BJOERN/REIMER, KAI/PLATTFAUT, RALF/CLEVEN, ANNE, Recon-
struction the Giant: On the Importance of Rigour in Documenting the Literature Search Process. In: Proceedings of the
European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) 2009, pp. 2206-2217.
BRÜGGEMEIER, MARTIN/DOVIFAT, ANGELA, Referenzmodelle für die Leistungserstellung in öffentlichen Leistungsnetz-
werken. In: Schweighofer, Erich/Liebwald, Doris/Augeneder, Silvia (Eds.), Effizienz von e-Lösungen in Staat und Ge-
sellschaft, Tagungsband des 8. Internationalen Rechtsinformatik Symposions IRIS 2005, Boorberg, 2005, pp. 211-214.
BRUNSCHWIG, COLETTE, Legal Design und Web Based Legal Training. In: Schweighofer, Erich/Menzel, Thomas/Kreuz-
bauer, Günther (Eds.), IT in Recht und Staat, Schriftenreihe Rechtsinformatik, Verl. Österreich Wien 2002, pp. 297-308.
CONBOY, KEVIN, Diagramming Transactions: Some Modest Proposals and a Few Suggested Rules. In: Transactions:
Tennessee Journal of Business Law, Vol. 16, pp. 91, 2014.
CURTOTTI, MICHAEL ANGELO, Enhancing the Communication of Law: a cross-disciplinary investigation applying infor-
mation technology, thesis of the Australian National University, 2016
DELBECQ, ANDRE L./VAN DE VEN, ANDREW H./GUSTAFSON, DAVID H., Group techniques for program planning: A guide
to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott Foresman, 1975.
DELFMANN, PATRICK/HERWIG, SEBASTIAN/LIS, LUKAS/STEIN, ARMIN, Supporting Distributed Conceptual Modelling
through Naming Conventions. In: Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, (4)1, pp. 3-20.
FILL, HANS-GEORG/ HAIDEN, KATHARINA, Visuelle Modellierung für Rechtsberatende Berufe am Beispiel der gesetzli-
chen Erbfolge. In: Schweighofer, Erich/Kummer, Franz/Hötzendorfer, Walter/Borges, Georg (Eds.), Netzwerke, Ta-
gungsband des 19. Internationalen Rechtsinformatik Symposions IRIS 2016, books@ocg.at, Wien 2016, pp. 349-356.
HAAPIO, HELENA/HAGAN, MARGARET, Design Patterns for Contracts In: Schweighofer, Erich/Kummer, Franz/Hötzen-
dorfer, Walter/Borges, Georg (Eds.), Netzwerke, Tagungsband des 19. Internationalen Rechtsinformatik Symposions
IRIS 2016, books@ocg.at, Wien 2016, pp. 381-386.
HEDDIER, MARCEL/KNACKSTEDT, RALF, Empirische Evaluation von Rechtsvisualisierungen am Beispiel von Handyver-
trägen. In: Schweighofer, Erich/Kummer, Franz/Hötzendorfer, Walter (Eds.), Abstraktion und Applikation, Tagungsband
des 16. Internationalen Rechtsinformatik Symposions IRIS 2013, books@ocg.at, Wien 2013, pp. 413-420.
HEVNER, ALAN R./MARCH, SALVATORE T./PARK, JINSOO/RAM, SUDHA, Design science in information systems research.
In: Management Information Systems Quarterly (MISQ), Vol. 28(1), 2004, pp. 75-105.
IZUMO, TAKASHI, Die Anwendbarkeit von Ontologie-Editor HOZO auf die Rechtswissenschaft. In: Schweighofer,
Erich/Kummer, Franz/Hötzendorfer, Walter (Eds.), Abstraktion und Applikation, Tagungsband des 16. Internationalen
Rechtsinformatik Symposions IRIS 2013, books@ocg.at, Wien 2013, pp. 365-370.
KAHLIG, WOLFGANG, Visualisierungstypologie des Deutschen Privatrechts. In: Schweighofer, Erich/Kummer, Franz
(Eds.), Europäische Projektkultur als Beitrag zur Rationalisierung des Rechts, Tagungsband des 14. Internationalen
Rechtsinformatik Symposions IRIS 2011, books@ocg.at, Wien 2011, pp. 575-584.
KNACKSTEDT, RALF/HEDDIER, MARCEL/BECKER, JÖRG, Conceptual Modeling in Law: An Interdisciplinary Research
Agenda. In: Communications of the AIS (CAIS), 34(1), 2014.
KUNG, C. H./SOLVBERG, ARNE, Activity Modeling and Behaviour Modeling. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 working
conference on Information system design methodologies, North-Holland Publishing Co., 1986, pp. 145-171.
NIEMAND, SVEN/SPECK, ANDREAS, Prozess-Muster für den Entwurf von Rechtsnorm-basierten Prozessdiagrammen. In:
Schweighofer, Erich/Kummer, Franz/Hötzendorfer, Walter/Borges, Georg (Eds.), Netzwerke, Tagungsband des 19. In-
ternationalen Rechtsinformatik Symposions IRIS 2016, books@ocg.at, Wien 2016, pp. 595-602.
SAUERWALD, MARKUS, Mind Mapping als Visualisierungsmethode in der juristischen Praxis. In: Schweighofer,
Erich/Geist, Anton/Heindl, Gisela (Eds.), 10 Jahre IRIS: Bilanz und Ausblick, Tagungsband des 10. Internationalen
Rechtsinformatik Symposions IRIS 2007, Boorberg, 2007, pp. 480-485.
SCHALLES, CHRISTIAN, Usability evaluation of modeling languages, Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden 2013.
WALSER KESSEL, CAROLONE, Rechtsvisualisierung im Spannungsfeld zwischen Abstraktion und Applikation Am Bei-
spiel des neuen schweizerischen Kindes- und Erwachsenenschutzrechts. In: Schweighofer, Erich/Kummer, Franz/Höt-
zendorfer, Walter (Eds.), Abstraktion und Applikation, Tagungsband des 16. Internationalen Rechtsinformatik Symposi-
ons IRIS 2013, books@ocg.at, Wien 2013, pp. 403-412.
... Prior to that, we need to study and analyze high dimensional data to understand and interpret the relationship between cluster and data attributes. Few (2007) stated that, handling growing high dimensional data causes difficulties especially in clustering elements into groups including visualization problems due to data clutters or distracting results. Proper clustering is a useful technique for statistical data analysis [4]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Star Coordinate (SC) is a circular visualization technique that maps k-dimensional data. Its interactive features allow user to manipulate projections to search for hidden information. Without prior knowledge of relationship between dimensions users will be blindly searching for clusters. This paper proposes dimension rearrangement using Euclidean Distance and Pearson Correlations to reveal the clusters in SC. The methodology consists of four phases; Calculate the distance between individual attributes against a dependent attribute using Euclidean distance; Pearson correlation is used to obtain the correlation data attributes; Sort the correlation values in ascending order; finally, attributes table are reordered with the positive values to the right and negative values to the left according to the correlation value. The resulting tables are applied to produce the SC. This method is successful in producing clusters that makes it easier for the users to further manipulate the SC for their data analysis. © 2018 Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science All rights reserved.
... Die Darstellung der sprachlichen Aspekte für die Mediation von Nachbarschaftsstreits orientiert sich an der Unterscheidung von drei aufeinander aufbauenden Ebenen (Abbildung 1), die für die Rechtsvisualisierung von zentraler Bedeutung sind (zu weiteren Bereichen vgl. [SCHOORMANN/KNACKSTEDT/ HAAPIO 2017]). Die Erstellung konkreter Visualisierungen in Mediationssitzungen (Ebene 1) nutzt eine Visualisierungssprache (Ebene 2), die unter Rückgriff auf bestimmte Vorgehensweisen der Sprachentwicklung (Ebene 3) konstruiert wurde (Abbildung 1). ...
Conference Paper
Diskussionen in Mediationen können durch Visualisierungen wirksam unterstützt werden. Hierfür muss Mediatoren eine Symbolbibliothek zur Verfügung stehen. Oft wird dieser Symbolvorrat eher zufällig und unsystematisch entwickelt. Der Beitrag vermittelt, basierend auf einem Vorgehensmodell zur computerlinguistisch unterstützten Entwicklung von Modellierungstechniken, wie sich passende Aspekte einer visuellen Sprache für die Darstellung von und Kommunikation in Mediationsprozessen aufbauen lassen. Am Beispiel einer Konfliktbeilegung eines Nachbarschaftsstreits wird die Visualisierung demonstriert.
... by research streams that (a) investigate the applicability of methods from IS research such as process modelling languages to represent legal and contract issues as well as (b) investigate extensions for such languages like BPMN (e.g., [24]). However, currently no well-accepted set of constructs for supporting law and legal aspects exists, thus, further research can deal with (1) method engineering to support the representation of relevant constructs, (2) evaluation to analyse if the suggested extensions are applicable and (3) standardization of the evaluated constructs to allow for developing new software tools that support the construction of them. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Product-service systems (PSS) offer great opportunities for companies to alter their business model, for example, for being competitive in the digital era. One important contributor for developing PSS is the presence of suitable modelling languages. In order to obtain requirements from the industry regarding process-oriented PSS modelling languages, we conducted 18 interviews with experts from 14 different companies. Based on over eight hours of transcripts, a total of 27 requirements were identified and compared to well-established process-oriented modelling languages (e.g., BPMN, UML and EPC). The findings can act as a framework for developing or adapting modelling languages—method engineering—to fulfil current industry needs.
... B. das Verbinden des "Lachmayer/?yras-Netzwerk" mit "Walser Kessel" [WALSER KESSEL oder das "Becker-" mit dem "Haapio-Netzwerk" [SCHOORMANN/ KNACKSTEDT/HAAPIO 2017]. Limitationen. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Dieser Beitrag zieht eine Zwischenbilanz zum Thema Rechtsvisualisierung in 20 Jahren IRIS. Dazu wurde eine multimethodische Literaturanalyse durchgeführt, die (I) sämtli-che Schwerpunkte der Tagungsbände (1998-2016) systematisch auf relevante Beiträge untersucht und (II) die Datenbasis (180 Beiträge) auswertet. Resultate zeigen u. a. Zu-sammenhänge von Autoren (Netzwerkanalyse), behandelte Themenfelder (Tag-Cloud-Analyse), Orte von Autoren (geografische Analyse) und die Anzahl relevanter Beiträge pro Jahr (Entwicklungsanalyse).
... • Client demand: Clients continuously pressure marketing research firms to deliver actionable research with strategic impact as opposed to large data sets (Appleton 2011;Bain 2012a Age is a wealth of data that overloads people and clients with too much information and a lack of actionable insights (Digit 2011;Doyle & Tharme 2011;Few 2007). ...
Article
Full-text available
Orientation: Actionable reporting ensures that a marketing research firm communicates with clients to achieve business impact as opposed to merely communicating data to clients. Storytelling communicates with impact as it focuses on creating engagement and inspiring action.Research purpose: This article investigates the use of storytelling as a tool for actionable reporting by South African marketing research firmsMotivation for the study: Clients of marketing research firms often criticise research reports as being too technical and lacking in strategic value. Storytelling is a reporting technique that can be used to develop actionable research and provide clients with more strategic value. Research design, approach and method: A total of 26 in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with client service directors and managers of marketing research firms that deliver quantitative research reports to clients.Main findings: Results indicated that all marketing research firms but one use storytelling. Barriers that impede more regular use are inexperienced research executives and the time intensity associated with creating stories.Practical/managerial implications: Storytelling should be used by marketing research firms to provide clients with more actionable research.Contribution/value-add: The study provides marketing research firms in South Africa with recommendations as to how to implement storytelling as a reporting technique, which will add value to clients and enable marketing research firms to remain competitive and develop relationships with clients.
Chapter
Full-text available
Zusammenfassung Wearables unterstützen ihre Nutzer:innen in unterschiedlichen Kontexten. Dabei erzeugen und nutzen sie eine Vielzahl von oft sehr persönlichen (Gesundheits-)Daten, ohne dass Nutzer:innen über die notwendigen Kenntnisse und Erfahrungen verfügen, um reflektierte Entscheidungen über die Nutzung dieser Daten treffen zu können. In der aktuellen Forschung fehlen Konzepte, die einen unreflektierten Datenaustausch vermeiden und reflektierte Entscheidungen unterstützen. In diesem Beitrag diskutieren wir gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen der digitalen Souveränität und zeigen mögliche Wege der Visualisierung persönlicher (Gesundheits-)Daten und der Interaktion mit einem System, das transparente Informationen über die Nutzung von Wearable-Daten liefert. Wir zeigen Möglichkeiten zur Visualisierung rechtlicher und datenschutzrechtlicher Informationen auf und diskutieren unsere Ideen für einen erlebbaren Datenschutz mit Gamifizierungskonzepten. Die Bereitstellung interaktiver und visueller Datenräume kann die Fähigkeit zur eigenständigen Selbstbestimmung für Datenpreisgaben stärken.
Article
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of data analytics in addressing contemporary challenges and opportunities facing institutions of higher education, with a special emphasis on enrollment management for the example of a college of business administration in a Hispanic-serving four-year institution of higher education. Design/methodology/approach After reviewing previous research on this subject, the authors propose adding a new stratum to higher education analytics, enrollment management analytics, which uniquely identifies the actions associated with attracting and recruiting students, accounts for institutional differences and leads to students’ successful matriculation at institutions. Findings The authors demonstrate on the example of a professional college in a four-year institution of higher education how the utilization of modern analytical tools and techniques develop actionable decisions in the students’ recruitment process, which leads to their matriculation. Originality/value A definition and a new stratum in higher education analytics are proposed for enrollment management analytics.
Thesis
Law is pervasive in culture. It is a form of communication between government and citizens. When effective, it is a tool of government policy. If poorly designed,law results in unnecessary costs to society. Impediments to understanding of the law limits and distorts democratic participation. Yet, historically, the law has been inaccessible to most. Thus enhancing the communication of law is an important and standing problem. Much work has been done (for example through the plain language movement) to improve the communication of law. Nonetheless, the law remains largely unreadable to non-legal users. This thesis applies information technology to investigate and enhance the communication of law. To this end, this thesis focusses on four main areas.To improve the readability of law, it must be better described as a form of language. Corpus linguistics is applied for this purpose. A linguistic description of contract language arose from this work, which, along with the corpus itself, has been made available to the research community. The thesis also describes work for the automatic classification of text in legal contracts by legal function.Reliable measures for the readability of law are needed, but they do not exist. To develop such measures, gold standard data is needed to evaluate possible measures.To create this gold standard data, the research engaged citizen scientists, in the form of the online “crowd”. However, methods for creating and using such user assessments for readability are rudimentary. The research therefore investigated,developed and applied a number of methods for collecting user ratings of readability in an online environment. Also, the research applied machine learning to investigate and identify linguistic factors that are specifically associated with language difficulty of legislative sentences. This resulted in recommendations for improving legislative readability. A parallel line of investigation concerned the application of visualization to enhance the communication of law. Visualization engages human visual perception and its parallel processing capacities for the communication of law. The research applied computational tools: natural language processing, graph characteristics and data driven algorithms. It resulted in prototype tools for automatically visualizing definition networks and automating the visualization of selected contract clauses. Also, the work has fostered an investigation of the nature of law itself. A “law as” framework is used to query the nature of law and illuminate law in new ways. The framework is re-assessed as a tool for the experimental investigation of law. This results in an enhanced description of law, applying a number of investigatory frames:law; communication; document; information; computation; design and complex systems theory. It also provides a contrastive study with traditional theories of law - demonstrating how traditional theories can be extended in the light of these multidisciplinary results. In sum, this thesis reports a body of work advancing the existing knowledge base and state of the art in respect of application of computational techniques to enhancing the communication of law.
Chapter
This chapter includes the development of an evaluation framework focusing on the usability assessment of graphical modeling languages. Concerning this, the present status quo in research is analyzed and presented. Furthermore, an adequate definition of usability and related attributes is analyzed. Based on this, qualified metrics and measurement methods are developed for measuring the different attributes of usability in the domain of graphical modeling languages. This evaluation framework acts as a basis for the usability surveys conducted in the further course of this thesis [Schalles et al., 2010b].
Conference Paper
Law as a profession has much in common with architecture and engineering. In contexts as diverse as business transactions, legislative work, and mediation, lawyers have been called legal architects or engineers. We propose seeing contracts as things or artefacts – something to be designed – and borrowing from architects and engineers the idea of design patterns: solutions to recurring problems. Our examples illustrate how design patterns may relate to contract forms, templates, or clauses, but also go way beyond. The paper concludes with an agenda for an open design pattern library for contracts, seeking to help share examples and best practices that enable better contract design and communication. Full text available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2747280
Article
The article describes how different approaches from the IS field of conceptual modeling should be transferred to the legal domain to enhance comprehensibility of legal regulations and contracts. It is further described how this in turn would benefit the IS discipline. The findings emphasize the importance of further interdisciplinary research on that topic. A research agenda that synthesizes the presented ideas is proposed based on a framework that structures the research field. Researchers from both disciplines, IS and Law, that are interested in this field should use the research agenda to position their research and to derive new and innovative research questions.
Data
Two paradigms characterize much of the research in the Information Systems discipline: behavioral science and design science. The behavioral-science paradigm seeks to develop and verify theories that explain or predict human or organizational behavior. The design-science paradigm seeks to extend the boundaries of human and organizational capabilities by creating new and innovative artifacts. Both paradigms are foundational to the IS discipline, positioned as it is at the confluence of people, organizations, and technology. Our objective is to describe the performance of design-science research in Information Systems via a concise conceptual framework and clear guidelines for understanding, executing, and evaluating the research. In the design-science paradigm, knowledge and understanding of a problem domain and its solution are achieved in the building and application of the designed artifact. Three recent exemplars in the research literature are used to demonstrate the application of these guidelines. We conclude with an analysis of the challenges of performing high-quality design-science research in the context of the broader IS community.
Article
Empirical studies attest that conceptual models created in distributed modelling environments often vary heavily in the way their respective model elements are labelled. Although the same issues are being modelled, different names are chosen by the involved persons. By this, the analysis and comparison of the models, which is required for their subsequent integration, is extremely challenging and time consuming. Literature analysis reveals several approaches addressing this problem by either manually or semi-automatically integrating existing models after their construction. However, this proves to be an exhaustive and error prone task. In this article we propose a domain and modelling language independent approach that prevents the emergence of naming conflicts already during the modelling process. This is done by formalising naming conventions consisting of context specific thesauri and customised phrase structures, which are both derived from natural language grammars and supplemented by domain-specific terms. These conventions serve as basis for a fully automated guidance of the modeller during the model creation process, resulting in semantically comparable conceptual models. For this, we present a research prototype that integrates our approach into a modelling tool.
Mind Mapping als Visualisierungsmethode in der juristischen Praxis
  • Markus Sauerwald
SAUERWALD, MARKUS, Mind Mapping als Visualisierungsmethode in der juristischen Praxis. In: Schweighofer, Erich/Geist, Anton/Heindl, Gisela (Eds.), 10 Jahre IRIS: Bilanz und Ausblick, Tagungsband des 10. Internationalen Rechtsinformatik Symposions IRIS 2007, Boorberg, 2007, pp. 480-485.