A Normal Form for Representing Legal Norms and its Visualisation Through Normative Diagrams
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59490/dgo.2025.1036Keywords:
Legal knowledge representation, formalisation of legal norms, deontic logic, legal logic, normal form, normative diagrams, autonomous driving, legal visualisationAbstract
Representing legal norms by means of an adequate formalism is essential for the development of legally compliant autonomous systems. The remarkable variety of both formalisation and implementation frameworks proposed during the last decades enables the development of relatively efficient formalisations over a wide range of applications. Notwithstanding, this abundance of frameworks also leads to some practical problems, especially with respect to the integration of – or the translation between – different frameworks. While more or less widely applicable meta-formalisms are already available, they are often too complex and counter-intuitive, thus being clearly closer to the technical implementation than to the conception phase of the formalisation process. As a complementary, more human-oriented solution to the problem, the paper at hand introduces and discusses a more intuitive normal form structure, which is based on elements of legal theory and aims at facilitating the interdisciplinary communication among the many partners involved in the process of developing law-abiding machines.
Downloads
References
Alexy, R. (1994). Theorie der Grundrechte (2nd ed.). Suhrkamp.
Bender, E. (2016). § 6. In P. König (Ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Straßenverkehrsrecht (pp. 392–393). C.H.Beck.
Bobbio, N. (1993). Teoria generale del diritto. G. Giappichelli.
Brunschwig, C. (2014). On visual law: Visual legal communication practices and their scholarly exploration. In E. Schweighofer, M. Handstanger, H. Hofmann, F. Kummer, E. Primosch, G. Schefbeck, & G. Withalm (Eds.), Zeichen und zauber des rechts. festschrift für friedrich lachmayer (pp. 899–933). Editions Weblaw.
Carnein, M., Quiring, E., Haack, A., Möhring, A., & Becker, J. (2014). Laiengerechte Erzeugung von 3DAnimationen am Beispiel von textuellen Unfallbeschreibungen. Jusletter IT.
Carneiro, D., Novais, P., Andrade, F., Zeleznikow, J., & Neves, J. (2014). Online dispute resolution: An artificial intelligence perspective. Artificial Intelligence Review, 41(2), 211–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-011-9305-z.
Cyras, V., & Lachmayer, F. (2023). Essays on the visualisation of legal informatics. Springer.
Dolata, M., & Schwabe, G. (2023). Moving beyond privacy and airspace safety: Guidelines for just drones in policing. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101874. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101874.
Döring, M., Mikkelsen, K. S., Madsen, J. K., & Haug, K. B. (2024). Creating a workforce of fatigued cynics? a randomized controlled trial of implementing an algorithmic decision-making support tool. Government Information Quarterly, 41(1), 101911. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101911.
Engisch, K. (1985). Einführung in das juristische Denken (8th ed.). Verlag W. Kohlhammer.
Gabbay, D., Horty, J., Parent, X., van der Meyden, R., & van der Torre, L. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of deontic logic and normative systems, vol 1. College Publications.
Gutt, S. (2022). § 6 StVO. In K. L. Haus, C. Krumm, & M. Quarch (Eds.), Gesamtes Verkehrsrecht (3rd ed.). Nomos.
Helle, M. (2021). § 6 StVO. In H.-P. Freymann & W. Wellner (Eds.), juris PraxisKommentar Straßenverkehrsrecht (2nd ed.). juris.
Heß, R. (2022a). § 2. In M. Burmann, R. Heß, K. Hühnermann, J. Jahnke, & K. Wimber (Eds.), Straßenverkehrsrecht (27th ed.). C.H.Beck.
Heß, R. (2022b). Vorbeifahren. In M. Burmann, R. Heß, K. Hühnermann, J. Jahnke, & K. Wimber (Eds.), Straßenverkehrsrecht (27th ed.). C.H.Beck.
Heyd, D. (Ed.). (2023). Handbook of supererogation. Springer.
Johnson, R., & Cureton, A. (2024). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2024). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Kelsen, H. (1979). Allgemeine Theorie der Normen. Manzsche Verlagsund Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Kelsen, H. (2017). Reine rechtslehre (2nd ed.). Mohr Siebeck.
Kessel, C. (2014). Kinder finden das Gesetz: Transparentes Recht für Kinder – Child-friendly Justice dank Visualisierung. Jusletter IT.
Kohlhase, M., Adrian, A., & Rapp, M. (2021). Context graphs for ampliative analogical legal reasoning and argumentation. Jusletter IT.
König, P. (2023). StVO § 6. In P. König & P. Dauer (Eds.), Straßenverkehrsrecht (47th ed.). C.H.Beck.
Lachmayer, F., & Cyras, V. (2021). Visualization of legal informatics. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems – JURIX 2021, 3–10. [link]
Larsen, A. G., & Følstad, A. (2024). The impact of chatbots on public service provision: A qualitative interview study with citizens and public service providers. Government Information Quarterly, 41(2), 101927. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101927.
Leone, V., Caro, L. D., & Villata, S. (2022). Legal ontologies: An overview. In G. Casini, L. Robaldo, L. van der Torre, & S. Villata (Eds.), Handbook of legal ai (pp. 89–122). College Publications.
Lin, Y., & Althoff, M. (2022). Rule-compliant trajectory repairing using satisfiability modulo theories. 2022 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 449–456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/IV51971.2022.9827357.
Lindgren, I. (2024). Ironies of automation and their implications for public service automation. Government Information Quarterly, 41(4), 101974. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101974.
Maierhofer, S., Moosbrugger, P., & Althoff, M. (2022). Formalization of intersection traffic rules in temporal logic. Proc. of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/IV51971.2022.9827153.
McCloskey, M. J. (1998). Visualizing the law: Methods for mapping the legal landscape and drawing analogies notes and comments. Washington Law Review, 73, 163–192.
Muff, F., & Fill, H.-G. (2021). Towards embedding legal visualizations in work practices by using augmented reality. Jusletter IT, 241–247.
Muff, F., Fill, H.-G., Kahlig, E., & Kahlig, W. (2022). Kontextabhängige rechtsvisualisierung mit augmented reality. HDM Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik.
Murray, M. D. (2021). Diagrammatics and the proactive visualization of legal information. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 43, 1–49.
Nawiasky, H. (1948). Allgemeine Rechtslehre als System der rechtlichen Grundbegriffe. Benziger & Co. Nortmann, U. (1989). Deontische Logik ohne Paradoxien. Semantik und Logik des Normativen. Philosophia.
Palmirani, M., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Tabet, S., Boley, H., & Paschke, A. (2011). LegalRuleML: XML-Based Rules and Norms. In F. Olken, M. Plamirani, & D. Sottara (Eds.), RuleML 2011: Rule-Based Modeling and Computing on the Semantic Web. 5th International Symposium, RuleMl 2011 (pp. 298–312). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24908-2_30.
Raabe, O., Wacker, R., Oberle, D., Baumann, C., & Funk, C. (2012). Recht ex machina. Springer.
Röhl, K., & Ulbrich, S. (2007). Recht anschaulich: Visualisierung in der juristenausbildung. Halem.
Sasdelli, D., & Trivisonno, A. (2023). Normative diagrams as a tool for representing legal systems. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies, 17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12626-023-00144-0.
Satoh, K. (2023). Proleg: Practical legal reasoning system. In D. S. Warren, V. Dahl, T. Eiter, M. V. Hermenegildo, R. Kowalski, & F. Rossi (Eds.), Prolog: The next 50 years (pp. 277–283). Springer Nature Switzerland. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35254-6_23.
Schauseil, T. (2011). Die Haftungsabwägung bei Einund Aussteigerunfällen. MDR – Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht, 961–967.
Sergot, M. J., Sadri, F., Kowalski, R. A., Kriwaczek, F., Hammond, P., & Cory, H. T. (1986). The british nationality act as a logic program. Commun. ACM, 29(5), 370–386. https://doi.org/10.1145/56%2089.5920
Steen, A., & Fuenmayor, D. (2022). Bridging Between LegalRuleML and TPTP for Automated Normative Reasoning. In G. Governatori & A.-Y. Turhan (Eds.), Rules and reasoning (pp. 244–260). Springer International Publishing.
Steffes, B., & Sasdelli, D. (2024). A legal visualisation tool using normative diagrams. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems – JURIX 2024, 395–397. [link]
Steffes, B., & Sasdelli, D. (2025). Alternative Darstellungsformen Normativer Diagramme. Jusletter IT. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38023/51565951-d1ea-4767-877f-639456f882af.
Sutcliffe, G. (2017). The TPTP Problem Library and Associated Infrastructure. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 59, 483–502.
Van Engers, T., Boer, A., Breuker, J., Valente, A., & Winkels, R. (2008). Ontologies in the legal domain. In H. Chen, L. Brandt, V. Gregg, R. Traunmüller, S. Dawes, E. Hovy, A. Macintosh, & C. A. Larson (Eds.), Digital government: E-government research, case studies, and implementation (pp. 233–261). Springer US. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71611-4_13.
Virkar, S., Alexopoulos, C., Tsekeridou, S., & Novak, A.-S. (2022). A user-centred analysis of decision support requirements in legal informatics. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), 101713. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101713.
Weinberger, C., & Weinberger, O. (1979). Logik, Semantik, Hermeneutik. C.H.Beck.
Wessels, U. (2002). Die Gute Samariterin: Zur Struktur der Supererogation. De Gruyter.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Versions
- 2025-06-03 (2)
- 2025-05-23 (1)
How to Cite
Conference Proceedings Volume
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Diogo Sasdelli, Bianca Steffes, Moussa Herrmann, Mari Chitashvili, Clara Wüst
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
