Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
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: | ||
{{: | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Discussion, Ideas, Brain Storming etc. ==== | ||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | ===== 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, | ||
+ | |||
+ | 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: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jean-Henry: Basic Infrastructure/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | 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, | ||
+ | | ||
+ | ===== 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:// | ||
+ | * 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:// | ||
+ | ====== How can a single case be structured ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Workflow of a Juge deciding a case | ||
+ | ** | ||
+ | - Facts triggering a dispute | ||
+ | - Trigger opening up the legal conversation, | ||
+ | - 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 ==== | ==== Demonstrations ==== | ||
Line 43: | Line 149: | ||
* Oleg Burlaca, Ketse | * Oleg Burlaca, Ketse | ||
* Friedhelm Weinberg, HURIDOCS "Make available and accessible human rights case law around the world" | * Friedhelm Weinberg, HURIDOCS "Make available and accessible human rights case law around the world" | ||
+ | * Franziska Nyffeler (Des) | ||
===== Licenses ===== | ===== Licenses ===== |