Transparent Complexity by Goals Vytautas YRAS Friedrich LACHMAYER - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transparent Complexity by Goals Vytautas Č YRAS Friedrich LACHMAYER Vilnius University, University of Innsbruck, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Faculty of Law, Vilnius, Lithuania Innsbruck, Austria Vytautas.Cyras@mif.vu.lt Friedrich.Lachmayer@uibk.ac.at

1. Introduction EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 2

Motivation • Making the teleological structure of e-Government explicit can contribute to reduce its complexity • Views to e-Government: – Authorities and citizens – Conception and construction • Teleological statements are especially found in the legislative workflow – governmental drafting; parliamentarian decisions; publication of the valid laws • Characterisation of legal order: many implicit and rare explicit teleological structures • Teleological method in law EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 3

Teleological reasoning vs. norm-based reasoning • General legal reasoning, especially by non- experts in law, is driven, primarily, by purposes , then by norms • Rational agent = intuitive cognition + reasoning • “Goal” is not among fundamental legal concepts!? – However, in G. Sartor, 2006 “Fundamental legal concepts” • Formalisation of teleology for AI & Law community – Berman & Hafner 1993; AI and Law journal, v.10 (2002), no.1-2 – Goals • interests, values; purposes, policies; intentions of a legislator EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 4

Goals of e-Government • “Increasing the performance of the governance” (Costake (2007)) • Grönlund (2007): – More efficient government – Better services to citizens – Improved democratic processes • Westerman (2007) – “Governance is governing by goals” – Result-prescribing norms EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 5

Goals of e-Government [Costake 2007] • General a. Transparency and accountability of the Governance b. Easy access to the public information c.Easy access to DG services • Citizens-oriented a. User friendly access to public information and services b. international recognition of e-documents • Business-oriented a. Provision of complete online public e-services b. E-procurement for public acquisitions • Oriented on users in state institutions a. Possibility to simulate and access the effects of drafts decisions or regulations b. Decision support services EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 6

Roots • Von Jhering’s “Interessensprudenz” • The European Union law – A constitution for Europe • Article I-2 The Union’s values; Article I-3: objectives EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 7

2. Goals in Software Engineering EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 8

Our approach: to treat a teleological network in law similarly to a goal model in RE • Assumption: a statute is a system. • Conclusion: system design methods might be used in legislative drafting. • Teleological network in a statute ~ a goal model in requirements engineering EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 9

Our approach • To treat a teleological network in the legal domain similarly to the goal model in Requirements Engineering • Assumption : a statute is a system. • Conclusion : systems design methods might be used in legislative drafting. • Teleological network in a statute ~ a goal model in requirements engineering EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 10

Goals in software engineering KAOS metamodel [Heaven, Finkelstein 2004]. KAOS – goal-oriented requirements engineering methodology, see van Lamsweerde EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 11

KAOS goal model [Matulevi č ius, Heymans 2005] EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 12

Goal reduction: AND, OR, XOR EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 13

Goals and agents • Responsibility link relates a bottom level subgoal to an agent subgoal1 subgoal2 agent1 agent3 agent4 • The agent is responsible for goal satisfaction • Agent of a requirement ~ subject of a norm • Goal and agent in requirements engineering ~ telos and subject in the law EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 14

Types of goals • Different goal types – Achieve goals require that some property eventually holds. In deontic logic, ◊ G. – Maintain goals require that some property always holds. □ G. – Cease goals requires that some property eventually stops to hold. Negation of achieve. – Avoid goals require that some property never holds. Negation of maintain. – Optimise , Test , Query , Perform , Preserve [Braubach et al. 2004] about Belief-Desire-Intention agent systems EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 15

3. Explicit teleological element within a norm EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 16

Norm (2.3) Modus (2.1) Subject (2.3) Action (2.4) Object (1) Condition (3) Telos Consider the structure of a norm to be composed of the following elements: (1) Condition (2) Disposition (2.1) Subject . This is an actor; (2.2) Action ; (2.3) Normative modus of the action; (2.4) Object of the action. (3) Telos – the explicit teleological element of the norm. We add the telos . EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 17

Norm Modus Subject Action Object Example 1: “Open the door” (1) Condition: empty (2.1) Subject: implicit (2.2) Action: “open” (2.3) Modus: implicit in the verb “open” (2.4) Object: “the door” (3) Telos: empty EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 18

Norm Modus Subject Action Object Example 2: “You must open the door” (1) Condition: empty (2.1) Subject: “you” (2.2) Action: “open” (2.3) Modus: “must” (2.4) Object: “the door” (3) Telos: empty EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 19

Norm Modus Subject Action Object Telos Example 3: “You must open the door for fresh air” (1) Condition: empty (2.1) Subject: “you” (2.2) Action: “open” (2.3) Normative modus of the action: “must” (2.4) Object the action: “the door” (3) Telos: “for fresh air” EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 20

Norm c s1 o a b Example 4: “Subject 1 must open the door for fresh air” Formal notation (in the form of relation): disposition te � telos Notation within the elements of a norm: o s1 (a � b) te � c Notation in algorithmical language: norm( condition=empty, disposition( subject=s1, action=a, modus=o, object=b ), telos=c ) EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 21

External and internal teleology of the norm • External teleology norm(A) te → G E.g. A = open_door and G = fresh_air A = close_door and G = security • Internal teleology norm(A te → G) E.g. “Open the door for fresh air” EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 22

Symbolisation and formalisation • Symbolisation is more or less domain notation like te → . • Formalisation is a correct logical notation. • The relation between them: norm(A te → G) does not necessarily imply N te → G • In other words: norm(A te → G) ≠ N te → G EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 23

4. Teleological statements and the context of teleology EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 24

Relational nature of teleology te-relation te-goal te-tool EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 25

te-relation is distinguished from a teleological statement te-relation te-goal te-tool te-projection te-statement (a te-> b) EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 26

te-context te-relation te-goal te-tool te-projection te-statement (a te-> b) EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 27

Teleological Statement, Context te b a te-STM (a te-> b) Contexts: legal, economical, scientific, political, ideological, etc. EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 28

Conceptual framework • te-tool a te-> b • te-goal a te-> b • te-relation a te-> b • te-statement STM (a te-> b) • te-projection STM (a te-> b) • te-context { STM (a te-> b) } EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 29

5. Explicit teleological statements within and outside the law EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 30

Teleological structure within the law te b a te-STM (a te-> b) Preamble of a regulation EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 31

Teleological structure concerning the norm Norm te b a te-STM (a te-> b) Parliamentarian materials EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 32

Normative teleological statement Dedication of a building te b a te-STM (a te-> b) Administrative decision EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 33

Teleological statement; the norm as a tool Norm te b a te-STM (a te-> b) Juridical commentaries upon an article of a law EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 34

Teleological statement; the norm as a goal Norm te b a te-STM (a te-> b) Political commentaries upon a legislative initiative EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 35

6. Multiple subjects and statement types EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 36

Goals have relational structure B te � A • Goals have the immanent structure of values – A serves to achieve B – B is a value EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 37

Next comes evaluation „positiv“ B te � A • This evaluation may be done by somebody else, not necessary who sets the relation EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 38

The norm is not the same as the relation (2) (2) „positiv“ „positiv“ B te � A (1) STM (Wert) (3) STM(A te � B) N ( A) (1) sets the relation A te � B Three subjects: (2) evaluates: both the action A and the goal B (3) sets the norm N(A)

Norms are free of values according to Kelsen’s “Pure Theory of Law” „positiv“ „positiv“ B te � A RS {N ( A)} N ( A) No values EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 40

7. Aristotelian „entelechie“ EGOV 08, 1-4.9.2008 41

Goal: entelechie (= Aristotelian term) Thing B te � A Immanent goal = entelechie Norm