Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- project:case_law_as_a_service_claas [2013/09/23 11:26] – [Demonstrations] loleg
+++ project:case_law_as_a_service_claas [2013/10/16 13:03] (current) – [Discussion, Ideas, Brain Storming etc.] joern
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 {{:project:claas_website-homepage_v0-1.png?200|Mockup of the Search|}} {{:project:claas_website_result-page_v0-1.png?200|Mockup of Search Results|}}
+==== Discussion, Ideas, Brain Storming etc. ====
+{{:project:ideas.jpg?300|}}
+===== Information Life Cycle =====
+  * Crawl + Identify -> Datasets of Cases
+  * Analyze + Classify -> ...
+  * Structure + Design -> ...
+  * Apply + Applications -> ...
+===== Structuring the law =====
+Should we try to structure the law? Is it possible? Does it make sense? If yes - how?
+Christian: Structure: Rule+Exception, Hierachy, Comment, Decisions, Statute Citations,
+Jörn: Decision Tree - Pros and Cons
+Christian: KMT: Tags, Context-Content but no rules
+===== First round of proposals =====
+Florian: Case law search engine for cantonal, federal and international cases - efficient, open and transparent
+Florian: Order and visualize case law: Leading case, last cast, heat maps, statistics, time line, graphs
+Alexander: better search engine, will provide crawling
+Christian: Visualization: Automatically attribute metadata to legal rulings in a case that facilate reading and understanding it (like rule, exception, references, hierarchies (major term), conditions+consequences, extension or restriction of rule)
+Jean-Henry: Basic Infrastructure/Kernel for crawling, indexing, searching, basic structuring and then layers on top that visualize, condense, explain the law
+Jörn: Annotation of court rulings and annotation of rule of laws with statistics on links, cases etc.
+Jean-Henry: Simple kernel with API, second layer with hight functionality, third layer with applications
+===== What could and should be done with CLaaS? =====
+====== CLaaS - Definition of objective and functionalities ======
+  * Definition of potential Use Cases
+  * Break down into layers and functionalities
+  * CLaaS - Definition of API-layers
+====== Possible implementation steps and modules ======
+  * Crawler
+  * BGE data: http://repository.opendata.ch/bundesgericht/
+  * Swisslex metadata
+  * merge data
+  * implementation of API? - Rather proof of concept! of some use cases than partial implementation of API
+====== What are the metadata of cases that we have from the Swiss federal court? ======
+  * Language
+  * area of law (2 levels)
+  * Object
+  * dossier number
+  * decision date
+  * cases cited (journal)
+  * cited by cases, journals
+  * article
+  * laws cited
+A simple prototypical conversion of metadata to linked data can be found here: [[http://erbguth.net/CLaaS/caselaw-rdf.xsl]]. To extract the text we used this script: [[http://erbguth.net/CLaaS/caselaw.xsl]]
+====== How can a single case be structured ======
+**Workflow of a Juge deciding a case
+**
+  - Facts triggering a dispute
+  - Trigger opening up the legal conversation, lawyers call it „question presented“ („Rechtsfrage“)
+  - Methods to limit the conversation to some areas of the overall legal landscape (for efficiency reasons)
+  - Exchange and weighting of arguments (dialectic)
+  - Decision („Law is a Conversation and the Juge makes the final statement“)
+**Arguments
+**
+  - Basis of the model: Arguments are in the center of each case
+  - What is an argument good for?
+    - Pushes forward a question presented to bring it closer to the decision (resolution of a case)
+    - Holds as an abstraction of a solution found in a specific case
+  - Arguments have a texture
+    - Some allow to make general statements
+      - Rule: „As a rule, …“
+      - Exception: „In exceptional cases, …“
+    - Some allow to describe certain mechanisms
+      - Conditions for a consequence to kick in
+      - Consequences
+  - Scope
+    - Arguments may apply only to a limited scope
+  - Arguments may be found in a variety of sources
+    - Statute (article of the law; „an article in an statute is nothing else but a very strong argument“ – reason: agree by many)
+    - Case Law
+    - Theoretical text written by a legal writer
+** Elements helping to further describe an argument
+**
+  - Nature of the rule („Rechtsnatur“)
+    - Purpose: Helps finding the judge / the lawyer to limit the conversation to what is in fact relevant
+  - Scope of the rule („Anwendungsbereich“)
+    - verortet innerhalb der Landkarte; hilft, systematisch zu sein
+  - Technical Terms („Begriff“)
+    - Are good to make a conversation among experts more efficient
+    - Terms have definitions
+      - Each definition has elements
+  - Comments / Catch-all
+    - Sometimes it may occur that a judge or a legal author discusses issues that are not pushing forward the case towards a solution
+  - Obiter dicta
+    - Mentions that are not needed to push the conversation towards a solution
+    - Are commonly used by judges to flag to the audience that future cases may be decided in a different manner (for transparency / notification purposes)
 ==== Demonstrations ====
@@ Line 43: / Line 149: @@
   * Oleg Burlaca, Ketse
   * Friedhelm Weinberg, HURIDOCS "Make available and accessible human rights case law around the world"
+  * Franziska Nyffeler (Des)
 ===== Licenses =====