
DIGITALISATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY
Part of the International Society for Information Studies series
12–16 Jun 2017, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Go to the Sessions
-
- Conference DTMD 2017. The Difference That Makes a Difference
- Conference FIS 2017. The Seventh International Conference on the Foundations of Information Science
- Conference ICPI 2017. Third International Conference on Philosophy of Information
- Conference IFEIS. International Forum on Ecology of Information Studies
- KEYNOTES. KEYNOTES
- PANELS. PANELS
- Parallel Panel 4. POSSIBILITY AND ACTUALITY: TOWARDS A MANIFESTO ON EVOLUTIONARY SYSTEMS
- SYMP. SYMPOSIA
- Symposium 1. Doctoral Symposium
- Symposium 2. Morphological Computing and Cognitive Agency
- Symposium 3. Cognitive Distributed Computing and its Impact on IT (Information Technology) as We Know It
- Symposium 6. Theoretical Information Studies
- WORKS. WORKSHOPS
- Workshop 1. DISTRIBUTED RESPONSIBILITY IN TIMES OF BIG DATA AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS
- Workshop 2. HABITS AND RITUALS
- Workshop 3. TRANSHUMANISM – THE PROPER GUIDE TO A POSTHUMAN CONDITION OR A DANGEROUS IDEA?
- Workshop 4. PLANNING WORKSHOP FOR THE BOOK PROJECT FOR THE BOOK SERIES
- Workshop 5. DIGITAL NETIZENS AT THE CROSSROADS OF SHARING AND PRIVATISING
- Workshop 8. ARTISTIC EVENTS
- Event Details
-
- Welcome from the Chairs
- Event Calls
- Conference Chairs
- Sessions
- Instructions for Authors
- List of Accepted Submissions
- Sponsors and Partners
- Registration
- Venue
- Call for Conferences
- Important Dates
- About This Conference
- Conference Schedule
- Travel & Registration Information
- Conference Organizers
- Proceedings & Editors
- Registration
- Call for Conferences
- Important Dates
- List of Keynotes & Videos
- Editions in this series
Welcome from the Chairs
Presented by the International Society for Information Studies
Gothenburg, Sweden, 12-16 June 2017
The conference is organized by the International Society for Information Studies IS4SI, with the Department of Applied Information Technology, belonging to both Chalmers University of Technology and University of Gothenburg, as local organizer.
International Society for Information Studies is an organisation which advances global and collaborative studies in the sciences of information, information technology and information society as a field in its own right, elaborate common conceptual frameworks and implement them in practice, contributing to the development of a sustainable information society.
Chalmers University of Technology enjoys highest international recognition and attracts students and researchers from all over the world. The goal is to actively contribute to the sustainable development. The University of Gothenburg is an open university involved in a constant exchange of knowledge, education and ideas with the rest of society. The broad research, 37 000 students and 6 000 employees, make the university a large and inspiring environment.
Call for Participation
Digitalization for a Sustainable Society: Embodied, Embedded, Networked, Empowered through Information, Computation & Cognition!
Our global society becomes increasingly data–information– knowledge based. This is often called “digitalization” or “digital society”. What does digitalization mean for us as individuals, as societies and on a global scale, how does it affect our lives? Mobile devices, cloud computing, envisioned ”internet of things” and “internet of everything” have already started to generate what is commonly called “big data”. Intelligent objects speaking for themselves, communicating with each other are being developed to create “cyber physical systems” of “communicating things” – in the production, transportation and other infrastructures, in the city as a whole (“intelligent city”) and at home (“intelligent homes”).
What will be the human’s role in this emerging “digital” society? The social and technological innovations that are intended to boost cognition, communication and co-operation are ambiguous: their potential to advance information commons is not fully exploited. A breakthrough to a global, sustainable information society must establish an information commons as a cornerstone of a new programme for coping with the challenges of the information age.
Please visit https://is4si-2017.org/calls/ for full information
We aim at gathering different stakeholders to meet and discuss, to present the state of the art and to envisage possible futures. Networked we hope to expand our shared knowledge for promotion of sustainable digitalization of society.
The focus of the reflection of information studies is twofold:
– on the impact of the sciences of information and its dynamics (computation) as well as their role as meaning-generators (cognition).
– on the foundations of the sciences of information, computation, communication and cognition.
Summit is planned as gathering of workshops, conferences, tracks, poster sessions, demonstrations and similar, connected by common plenary talks, social events, exhibitions, discussions, etc.
We invite participants from research institutions, companies, civil society organizations and other stakeholders in the process of digitalization for sustainable development to:
Organize
- a conference stream
- a workshop
- a panel
- tutorial
- an exhibition
- poster session
- demonstration
- artistic event or similar
- support the meeting as a partner organisation
Please, visit https://is4si-2017.org/calls/ for further information.
Conference Chairs
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic
Pär Meiling
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
[Not defined]
[email protected]
Kristjana Xhuxhi
[Not defined]
[email protected]
Sessions
CONFERENCE DTMD 2017. The Difference That Makes a DifferenceCONFERENCE FIS 2017. The Seventh International Conference on the Foundations of Information Science
CONFERENCE ICPI 2017. Third International Conference on Philosophy of Information
CONFERENCE IFEIS. International Forum on Ecology of Information Studies
KEYNOTES. KEYNOTES
PANELS. PANELS
PARALLEL PANEL 4. POSSIBILITY AND ACTUALITY: TOWARDS A MANIFESTO ON EVOLUTIONARY SYSTEMS
SYMP. SYMPOSIA
SYMPOSIUM 1. Doctoral Symposium
SYMPOSIUM 2. Morphological Computing and Cognitive Agency
SYMPOSIUM 3. Cognitive Distributed Computing and its Impact on IT (Information Technology) as We Know It
SYMPOSIUM 6. Theoretical Information Studies
WORKS. WORKSHOPS
WORKSHOP 1. DISTRIBUTED RESPONSIBILITY IN TIMES OF BIG DATA AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS
WORKSHOP 2. HABITS AND RITUALS
WORKSHOP 3. TRANSHUMANISM – THE PROPER GUIDE TO A POSTHUMAN CONDITION OR A DANGEROUS IDEA?
WORKSHOP 4. PLANNING WORKSHOP FOR THE BOOK PROJECT FOR THE BOOK SERIES
WORKSHOP 5. DIGITAL NETIZENS AT THE CROSSROADS OF SHARING AND PRIVATISING
WORKSHOP 8. ARTISTIC EVENTS
Instructions for Authors
Procedure for Submission, Peer-Review, Revision and Acceptance of Extended Abstracts
The IS4SI event (conference, symposium, workshop, etc) will accept extended abstracts only. The accepted abstracts will be available online on Sciforum.net during and after the conference. Papers based on the extended abstracts can be published by authors in several journal special issues as well as books, see more under https://is4si-2017.org/publications/. All accepted extended abstracts will be published in the journal Proceedings, under condition that at least one author registers and presents at is4si.
For all submission deadlines and notification dates please visit https://is4si-2017.org/submissions/.
Submission of extended abstracts should be done by the authors online.
It follows a two-stage procedure. In the first stage, short abstracts are submitted in text format. If accepted, the next stage is to send a formatted pdf file version, (together with its original .docx file) that will be included in the Proceedings.
If you do not already have an user account with this website, please create one by registering with sciforum.net. After registration, please log in to your user account, and use the Submit New Abstract. Please choose the IS4SI 2017 conference in the first step. In the second step, choose the appropriate conference session, symposium, workshop, etc. In the third step you will be asked to type in the title, abstract and optionally keywords. In the fourth and last step, you will be asked to enter all co-authors, their e-mail addresses and affiliations.
- For participation in paper sessions of the Summit please submit an extended abstract in text format (about 750 to 3000 words) online on this website, to a given event.
- The International Program Committee of each event will review submissions and decide about the suitability of abstracts for the Summit. All authors will be notified about the acceptance of their extended abstract by the notification date.
- If the text abstract is accepted, the authors will be asked to submit a formatted version of the extended abstract as a PDF file.
Please note that the abstract submission and conference registration are two separate processes.
Upon acceptance of the text abstract submitted in the first stage, please use the abstract template to prepare formatted pdf file, and send in together with the original version (doc, docx, zip) by the deadline specified at https://is4si-2017.org/submissions/
The formatted version of the extended abstract should have the following organization:
- Title
- Full author names
- Affiliations (including full postal address) and authors' e-mail addresses
- Short Abstract (150 to 250 words)
- Extended Abstract (up to 3 pages)
- References
- Paper Format: A4 paper format, the printing area is 17.5 cm x 26.2 cm. The margins should be 1.75 cm on each side of the paper (top, bottom, left, and right sides).
- Paper Length: The manuscript should be 3 pages (incl. references), but not longer.
- Formatting / Style: Please use the template to prepare your abstract (see the link above).
- References & Citations: The full titles of cited papers and books must be given. Reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [4] or [1-3], and all the references should be listed separately and as the last section at the end of the manuscript.
- Authors List and Affiliation Format: Authors' full first and last names must be given. Abbreviated middle name can be added. For papers written by various contributors a corresponding author must be designated. The PubMed/MEDLINE format is used for affiliations: complete street address information including city, zip code, state/province, country, and email address should be added. All authors who contributed significantly to the manuscript (including writing a section) should be listed on the first page of the manuscript, below the title of the article. Other parties, who provided only minor contributions, should be listed under Acknowledgments only. A minor contribution might be a discussion with the author, reading through the draft of the manuscript, or performing English corrections.
- Figures, Schemes and Tables: Authors are encouraged to prepare figures and schemes in color. Figure and schemes must be numbered (Figure 1, Scheme I, Figure 2, Scheme II, etc.) and a explanatory title must be added. Tables should be inserted into the main text, and numbers and titles for all tables supplied. All table columns should have an explanatory heading. Please supply legends for all figures, schemes and tables. The legends should be prepared as a separate paragraph of the main text and placed in the main text before a table, a figure or a scheme.
Copyright to the extended abstracts will stay with the authors of the paper. Authors will be asked to grant MDPI AG (Publisher of the Sciforum platform) and ISIS (organizer of the conference) a non-exclusive, non-revokable license to publish the abstracts online and possibly in print under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license. As authors retain the rights to their abstracts and papers, papers can be published elsewhere later.
List of accepted submissions (186)
Id | Title | Authors | Presentation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sciforum-011675 | Should apocalyptic AI scenarios be taken seriously? | N/A |
Show Abstract |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Can it be taken for granted that humans will remain in control in a situation where a breakthrough in artificial intelligence (AI) has led to our no longer being the foremost creatures on our planet in terms of general intelligence? This question lies at the heart of arguments put forth in recent years by philosopher Nick Bostrom, computer scientist Stuart Russell, physicist Max Tegmark and others -- arguments that raise dire concerns about such scenarios. Others claim that such concerns are a useless (or even dangerous) distraction. I will attempt a cool-headed and balanced evaluation of whether apocalyptic AI scenarios are worth paying attention to. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sciforum-010548 | The Practice and Value Reconstruction of Modern Information Ecological Ethics : Beliefs, Argument and Strategy | N/A |
Show Abstract |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As a kind of thinking mechanism that grasps motion, change and development of objects on the whole, systematic thinking contains a whole set of thinking principles, methods and operation procedures. With the uprising popularity of studies on informational system science and complexity theory, information reveals a new field that the philosophy of the past has not discovered. Wu’s works are putting forward a wholly new scientific thinking way: the Informational Thinking. We can conclude rationally from Wu’s explanations of information that the character of informational thinking way can include and surpass the basic idea of systematic thinking way. So far as the whole process of scientific cognition is concerned, functions of informational thinking are expanded in several aspects. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sciforum-011650 | A Model of Complexity for the Legal Domain |
![]() |
Show Abstract |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr. C.N.J. de Vey Mestdagh, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, [email protected] Extended abstract , submission date 15-4-2017 The complexity of the universe can only be defined in terms of the complexity of the perceptual apparatus. The simpler the perceptual apparatus the simpler the universe. The most complex perceptual apparatus must conclude that it is alone in its universe.Abstract The concept of complexity has been neglected in the legal domain. Both as a qualitative concept that could be used to legally and politically analyse and criticize legal proceedings and as a quantitative concept that could be used to compare, rank, plan and optimize these proceedings. In science the opposite is true. Especially in the field of Algorithmic Information Theory (AIT) the concept of complexity has been scrutinized. In this paper we first have a quick look at AIT to see what it could mean in this phase of our research in the legal domain. We conclude that the there is a difference between problem complexity and solution complexity. In this paper we therefore start to develop a model of complexity by describing problem complexity in the legal domain. We use a formal model of legal knowledge to derive and describe the parameters for the description of the problem complexity of cases represented in this formal model. Further research will focus on refining and extending the formalization of the model of complexity, the comparison of problem and solution complexity for several legal cases using available algorithms and on the validation of the combined model against concrete cases and lawyers’ and legal organizations’ opinions about their complexity. 1. Complexity in the legal domain
The concept of complexity is hardly developed in the legal domain. Most of the descriptions of concepts related to complexity in legal literature refer to vagueness (intension of concepts), open texture (extension of concepts), sophistication (number of elements and relations) and multiplicity of norms (concurring opinions) - in most cases even without explicit reference to the concept of complexity. Complexity arises in all these cases from the existence and competition of alternative perspectives on legal concepts and legal norms.[1] A complex concept or norm from a scientific point of view is not necessarily a complex concept or norm from a legal point of view. If all parties involved agree, i.e. have or choose the same perspective/opinion - there is no legal complexity, i.e. there is no case/the case is solved. In science more exact definitions of complexity are common and applied. Complexity is associated with i.a. uncertainty, improbability and quantified information content. Despite this discrepancy between the legal domain and the domain of science, in the legal domain complexity is as important as in other knowledge domains. Apart from the obvious human interest of acquiring and propagating knowledge per se, complexity has legal, economic, political and psychological importance. Legal, because a coherent concept of complexity helps to analyse and criticize legal proceedings, in order to clarify them, to enable a justified choice of the level of expertise needed to solve legal cases, and to reduce unnecessary complexity (an example of reducing complexity by compression is given in the next paragraph); Economic, because complexity increases costs and measuring complexity is a precondition for the reduction of these costs (can help in designing effective norms, implementing them effectively, calculating and reducing the costs of legal procedures (cf. White, M.J., 1992), planning the settlement of disputes and other legal proceedings, etc.); Political, because legal complexity can be an instrument to exert power and can increase inequality; Psychological, because complexity increases uncertainty. A validated model of complexity in the legal domain can help to promote these interests. (Cf. Schuck, P.H., 1992; Ruhl, J. B., 1996; Kades, E., 1997). How to develop a model of complexity in the legal domain (methodology) In this paper we will try to bridge the gap between the intuitive definitions of complexity in the legal domain and the more exact way of defining complexity in science. We will do that on the basis of a formal model of legal knowledge (the Logic of Reasonable Inferences and its extensions) that we introduced before, that was implemented as the algorithm of the computer program Argumentator and that was empirically validated against a multitude of real life legal cases. The ‘complexities’ of these legal cases proved to be adequately represented in the formal model. In earlier research we actually tested the formal model against 430 cases of which 45 were deemed more complex and 385 less complex by lawyers. A first result was that the algorithm (Argumentator) when provided with case facts and legal knowledge was able to solve 42 of the more complex cases and 383 of the 385 less complex cases in exactly the same way as the legal experts did (including the systematic mistakes made by these experts). A second result was that the algorithm when instructed to do so improved the decisions in 30 (66%) of the 45 more complex cases and in 104 (27%$) of the 385 less complex cases. This result confirms the relative complexity of the first 45 cases. The selection of these 45 cases thus provides us with the material from which criteria for the definition of complexity in this paper could be derived. These criteria are translated to quantitative statements about the formal representation of the cases. Further research will focus on the fine tuning of this quantitative model by comparing its results with new empirical data (new cases and opinions of lawyers about the (subjective) complexity of cases). Finally the ability of the fine-tuned model to predict complexity in new cases will be tested. A positive result can be applied to reduce the aforementioned costs of processing of complex legal knowledge.
2. Models of complexity in science
There are many different definitions of complexity in science. The aim of this research is to develop a measure of complexity for formal representations of legal knowledge and their algorithmic implementations. In this abstract we will therefore refer to definitions of complexity from Algorithmic Information Theory (AIT), which studies the complexity of data structures (representations of knowledge in a computer). In AIT the complexity of data structures is equated with its information content. Complexity is postulated to decrease proportionate to the degree of (algorithmic) compressibility of the data structure. To assess the usefulness of AIT for our practical purpose, i.e. the design of a quantitative model of complexity of legal knowledge, we studied some publications from the domain of AIT. We read that complexity is approached as Algorithmic Probability (c.f. Solomonoff’s a priori probability), i.e. the higher the probability that a random computer program outputs an object, the less complex this object is considered to be. We read that complexity is approached as Algorithmic Complexity (c.f. Kolmogorov’s descriptive complexity), i.e. the shorter the code needed to describe an object (string), the less complex this object is considered to be. This is an interesting approach since it seems to offer a concrete measure for the complexity of certain objects (e.g. of legal problems) and it associates with the concept of compressibility which we are able to transpose as simplification (as opposed to sophistication) to the legal domain. Finally we read about Dual Complexity Measures (c.f. Burgin, 2006), which relates AIT to more complex problem structures and distinguishes the complexity of the system described (the problem and its solution) from the complexity of the description (the algorithm used to describe the problem and its solution). A common and essential aspect of these approaches is the compressibility of the object as a measure of its complexity. In all these cases the computer program is considered to be an explanation of a (more or less complex) object (or data structure). My conclusion is that these approaches will be useful when trying to prove certain characteristics of the model of complexity in the legal domain, once developed, but not primarily for the design of the model. We will have to describe the formal model and the algorithm (explanation) first. Just to get a practical insight in the concept of compressibility we did apply the idea of compressibility to some legal cases (see example below). However, many of the characteristics of legal cases that make them ‘complex’ according to lawyers are not directly related to compressibility. Moreover, often the most simple ‘palaver’ in the legal domain is meant to be incomprehensible and therefore misses the (semantic and relational) patterns that are needed to be compressible. Our conclusion is that this concept only partially covers the problem in the legal domain. We are eager to discuss this with our colleagues in the mathematical domain. An example of operand compression using logical equivalence in the legal domain Objects regulation U.1. appendix III Decree Indication Chemical Waste reads: ‘Waste products are not considered as chemical waste [cw] if they are objects [o] that have attained the waste phase of their lifecycle [wp], unless:
De logical structure of this legal provision is: not cw is implied by o and wp and not ((not ru) or (ru and (1 or .. or 10))) Logically equivalent with this formalisation of the provision is the formula: not cw is implied by o and wp and ru and not (1. or .. or 10) which is a compression of the original provision. Interestingly enough the retranslation of this equivalent formula to natural language is: ‘Waste products are not considered as chemical waste if they are objects that have attained the waste phase of their lifecycle and they have reached the user and they are not 1. transformers .. 10. mercury thermometers’. Although this example illustrates that compression can be beneficial because it improves the readability of the regulation, it does not reduce its actual complexity which - in practice - is related to different opinions about the meaning of concepts like ‘Waste products’. 3. A formal model of legal knowledge (reasonable inferences)
The first step in developing a model of complexity in the legal domain is to describe the formal characteristics of legal knowledge that are related to the essence of complexity in this domain, i.e. the competition of opinions. In a previous publication (de Vey Mestdagh and Burgin, 2015) we introduced the following model that allows for reasoning about (mutually exclusive) alternative opinions and that allows for tagging the alternatives, e.g., describing their identity and context: Our knowledge of the world is always perspective bound and therefore fundamentally inconsistent, even if we agree to a common perspective, because this agreement is necessarily local and temporal due to the human epistemic condition. The natural inconsistency of our knowledge of the world is particularly manifest in the legal domain (de Vey Mestdagh et al., 2011). In the legal domain, on the object level (that of case facts and opinions about legal subject behavior), alternative (often contradicting) legal positions compete. All of these positions are a result of reasoning about the facts of the case at hand and a selection of preferred behavioral norms presented as legal rules. At the meta-level meta-positions are used to make a choice for one of the competing positions (the solution of an internal conflict of norms, a successful subject negotiation or mediation, a legal judgement). Such a decision based on positions that are inherently local and temporal is by definition also local and temporal itself. The criteria for this choice are in most cases based on legal principles. We call these legal principles metaprinciples because they are used to evaluate the relations between different positions at the object level. To formalize this natural characteristic of (legal) knowledge we developed the Logic of Reasonable Inferences (LRI, de Vey Mestdagh et al., 1991). The LRI is a logical variety that handles inconsistency by preserving inconsistent positions and their antecedents using as many independent predicate calculi as there are inconsistent positions (Burgin and de Vey Mestdagh, 2011, 2013). The original LRI was implemented and proved to be effective as a model of and a tool for knowledge processing in the legal domain (de Vey Mestdagh, 1998). In order to be able to make inferences about the relations between different positions (e.g. make local and temporal decisions), labels were added to the LRI. In de Vey Mestdagh et al. 2011 formulas and sets of formulas are named and characterized by labelling them in the form (Ai, Hi, Pi, Ci). These labels are used to define and restrict different possible inference relations (Axioms Ai and Hypotheses Hi, i.e. labeled signed formulas and control labels) and to define and restrict the composition of consistent sets of formulas (Positions Pi and Contexts Ci). Formulas labeled Ai must be part of any position and context and therefore are not (allowed to be) inconsistent. Formulas labeled Hi can only be part of the same position or context if they are mutually consistent. A set of formulas labeled Pi represents a position, i.e. a consistent set of formulas including all Axioms (e.g., a perspective on a world, without inferences about that world). A set of formulas labeled Ci represents a context (a maximal set of consistent formulas within the (sub)domain and their justifications, c.f. the world under consideration). All these labels can be used as predicate variables and if individualized to instantiate predicate variables and consequently as constants (variables as named sets). Certain metacharacteristics of formulas and pairs of formulas were finally described by labels (e.g., metapredicates like Valid, Excludes, Prefer) describing some of their legal source characteristics and their legal relations which could be used to rank the different positions externally. The semantics of these three Predicates (Valid, Exclude and Prefer) are described in de Vey Mestdagh et al. 2011. These three predicates describe the elementary relations between legal positions that are prescribed by the most fundamental sets of legal principles (i.e. principles regarding the legal validity of positions, principles regarding the relative exclusivity of legal positions even if they do not contradict each other and principles regarding the preference of one legal position over another). It was also demonstrated that the LRI allows for reasoning about (mutually exclusive) alternatives. In (de Vey Mestdagh and Burgin, 2015) we showed that labels can be used formally to describe the ranking process of positions and contexts. With that the thus extended LRI allows for local and temporal decisions for a certain alternative, which means without discarding the non-preferred alternatives like belief revision does and without using the mean of all alternatives like probabilistic logics do. This extended the LRI from a logical variety that could be used to formalize the non-explosive inference of inconsistent contexts (opinions) and naming (the elements of) these contexts to a labeled logical variety, in which tentative decisions can be formally represented by using a labelling that allows for expressing the semantics of the aforementioned meta-predicates and prioritizing (priority labelling). In (de Vey Mestdagh and Burgin, 2015) we illustrated the use of these labels by examples. In the next paragraph we will use the extended LRI to identify the quantitative parameters of complexity in the legal domain.
4. A formal model of the complexity of legal knowledge (parameters for a reasonable calculation of complexity)
The processing of legal knowledge takes place in successive phases. Each phase is characterized by its own perspectives and associated parameters of complexity. Roughly, first the different parties in a legal dispute take their positions, then the positions are confronted and a decision is made and finally the decision is presented. The complexity of the dispute differs from phase to phase. Again roughly, from intermediate (the separate positions), to high (the confrontation and decision making), to low (the decision itself). The separate positions are basically consistent and their contents can each be processed within a separate single logical variety. When the dispute starts complexity increases, because the shared axioms of the dispute have to be calculated and the positions are by definition mutually inconsistent and several calculi within the logical variety have to be used to calculate the joint process of the dispute and to decide between different hypotheses within the dispute. Ultimately the decision principles included in the different positions have to be used to rank the different consistent solutions. The dispute ends by presenting the highest ranking consistent (local and temporal) decision, representing a concurring opinion or a compromise. The complexity of this result is reduced again, because it can be (re)calculated within a single consistent variety. Below we will describe these phases in more detail and the related parameters of complexity in terms of the formal model introduced above. In a certain case the complexity of the case can be quantified on the basis of the case elements and relations presented by all parties. The processing takes place in five phases: At the start of legal knowledge processing the case can be described as:
The next step is:
The third step is:
The fourth step is:
The last step is
Each step in this process is characterized by its own parameters of complexity. In legal practice different procedures are used to determine and handle (reduce) complexity in these different phases. In the first phase a direct, static measure of complexity is commonly applied. The number of parties and the number of Hypotheses. This is a rough estimate of the number of different positions (interpretations, perspectives, interests). In the second phase a direct, relative measure of complexity is commonly applied. The number of Ai and its relative size to Hi. The larger the relative size of Ai the less complex a case is considered to be, because there is supposed to be more consensus. In the third and fourth phases all positions Pi and contexts Ci are derived: Given the resulting set of labelled formula (Ai, Hi, Pi, Ci) representing the legal knowledge presented in a certain case, the problem complexity of this set can be defined as follows:
In the fifth phase ranking of the contexts takes place. The number of rankings depends on the inclusion of metanorms in the respective contexts. Metanorms that are agreed upon are part of Ai, metanorms that are not agreed upon are part of Hi. The process of applying the metanorms is fully recursive, since the objects of the metanorms are other (meta)norms, which are themselves also part of (Ai, Hi). This means that the determination of the complexity of the application of the metanorms is included in the previous phases. In this phase only the resulting number of rankings is established and can be considered to be an independent measure of complexity. 5. Validation of the model of complexity
The model of parameters for a reasonable calculation of complexity of legal knowledge as described in the previous paragraph is based on prior theoretical and empirical research into the complexity of legal knowledge (de Vey Mestdagh, 1997, 1998). A total of 430 environmental law cases have been formally represented in the formal model of legal knowledge introduced in paragraph 3 (the extended LRI) and their relative complexity has been established on the basis of legal expert judgements. The opinion of the experts was that 45 cases were of a complex nature and 385 of a less complex (more general) nature. This has been verified by applying an expert system to these cases that was enabled (provided with more complete data and knowledge) to improve on the human judgements in the 430 cases. The test results have shown that in the complex cases 66% of the human judgements were improved by the expert system (of which 20% full revisions), while in the general cases only 27% of the human judgements were improved by the expert system (of which only 2% full revisions). The complex cases are characterized by higher counts of the parameters distinguished in the previous paragraph. Further validation research is needed to refine the model of parameters for a reasonable calculation of complexity of legal knowledge as described in the previous paragraph. The relative weight of the counts of the parameters described will be varied against the available dataset of legal cases. The results will also be correlated with other variables that are available to gain further insight in possible parameters of complexity. Examples of these variables are: number of submitted documents, length of procedure, number of appeals, spending power of the parties involved, level of expertise of the lawyers involved, etc. 6. Conclusion and further research
In this paper we have explored the concept of complexity in the legal domain. A first conclusion is that the concept has not been studied explicitly in the legal domain. Only indirectly as a qualitative concept (vagueness, open texture, etc.) and hardly ever as a quantitative concept. However, a quantitative model of complexity in the legal domain has - apart from its scientific meaning per se – legal, economic and political implications. It will allow us to improve the quality and efficiency of legal proceedings. Algorithmic Information Theory offers several approaches to the quantification of complexity that inspired the approach chosen in this paper. It induced the thought that a distinction between problem complexity and resolution complexity is necessary and that a model of complexity based on the formal representation of legal knowledge should be the first step in developing a model of complexity in the legal domain. In this paper we give a description of a formal representation of legal knowledge (the extended Logic of Reasonable Inferences) and we describe the quantitative parameters of complexity for this model. The result we would like to call Reasonable Complexity, because it is based on the LRI and because it inherits its relative, perspective bound character. Complexity is specifically relative to the number of perspectives combined in the knowledge under consideration. Further research will focus on extending the model of complexity to resolution complexity, using - amongst others – available algorithms (i.a. Argumentator, a computer program we developed to implement the LRI). It will also use an available dataset of 430 environmental law cases that have been described and analysed before and that have already been represented in Argumentator. References Burgin, M.: Super-Recursive Algorithms, Springer Science & Business Media, 2006 Burgin, M., de Vey Mestdagh, C.N.J.: The Representation of Inconsistent Knowledge in Advanced Knowledge Based Systems. In: Andreas Koenig, Andreas Dengel, Knut Hinkelmann, Koichi Kise, Robert J. Howlett, Lakhmi C. Jain (eds.). Knowlege-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, vol. 2, pp. 524-537. Springer Verlag, ISBN 978-3-642-23862-8, 2011 Burgin, M., de Vey Mestdagh, C.N.J.: Consistent structuring of inconsistent knowledge. In: J. of Intelligent Information Systems, pp 1-24, , Springer US, September 2013 Dworking, R.: Law's Empire, Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press, 1986 Hart, H.L.A.: The Concept of Law, New York, Oxford University Press, 1994 Kades, E.: The Laws of Complexity & the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law (1997). Faculty Publications. Paper 646. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/646 Ruhl, J. B.: Complexity Theory as a Paradigm for the Dynamical Law-and-Society System: A Wake-UpCall for Legal Reductionism and the Modern Administrative State. Duke Law Journal, Vol. 45, No. 5 (Mar., 1996), pp. 849-928 Schuck, Peter H.: Legal Complexity: Some Causes, Consequences, and Cures. Duke Law Journal, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Oct., 1992), pp. 1-52 Vey Mestdagh, C.N.J. de, Verwaard, W., Hoepman, J.H.: The Logic of Reasonable Inferences. In: Breuker, J.A., Mulder, R.V. de, Hage, J.C. (eds) Legal Knowledge Based Systems, Model-based legal reasoning, Proc. of the 4th annual JURIX Conf. on Legal Knowledge Based Systems, pp. 60-76. Vermande, Lelystad, 1991 Vey Mestdagh, C.N.J. de.: Juridische Kennissystemen, Rekentuig of Rekenmeester?, Het onderbrengen van juridische kennis in een expertsysteem voor het milieuvergunningenrecht (proefschrift), 400 pp., serie Informatica en Recht, nr. 18, Kluwer, Deventer, 1997, ISBN 90 268 3146 3; Vey Mestdagh, C.N.J. de. Legal Expert Systems. Experts or Expedients? In: Ciampi, C., E. Marinai (eds.), The Law in the Information Society, Conference Proceedings on CD-Rom, Istituto per la documentazione giuridica del Centro Nazionale delle Richerche, Firenze, 2-5 December 1998, 8 pp. Vey Mestdagh, C.N.J. de, Hoepman, J.H.: Inconsistent Knowledge as a Natural Phenomenon: The Ranking of Reasonable Inferences as a Computational Approach to Naturally Inconsistent (Legal) Theories. In: Dodig-Crnkovic, G. & Burgin, M. (Eds.), Information and Computation (pp. 439-476). New Jersey: World Scientific, 2011 Vey Mestdagh, C.N.J. de, Burgin, M.: Reasoning and Decision Making in an Inconsistent World: Labeled Logical Varieties as a Tool for Inconsistency Robustness. In: R. Neves-Silva, L. C. Jain, & R. J. Howlett (Eds.), Intelligent Decision Technologies. (pp. 411-438). Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies; Vol. 39. Springer, 2015 White, M.J.: Legal Complexity and Lawyers’ Benefit from Litigation. International Review of Law and Economics (1992) 12, 381-395. [1] Cf. H.L.A., Hart, who uses the concept of discretion to characterize hard (complex) cases, in The Concept of Law, New York, Oxford University Press, 1994; and R. Dworking, who distinguishes easy from hard cases using the concept of principled interpretation, in Law's Empire, Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press, 1986; Although fundamentally differing in their opinion about the sources of the decision criteria, they both acknowledge the alternative perspectives that play a role in deciding complex cases (the judge’s discretion in the light of the parties alternative perspectives vs. the judges principled interpretation in the context of the parties alternative perspectives). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sciforum-011480 | “Alternative Facts” and “Fake News”: cultural studies’ illegitimate brainchildren | N/A |
Show Abstract |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Looking at the state of the Humanities today, a number of the demands by Cultural Studies theorists, from Birmingham to Chapel Hill have been met. In the western world, people – even outside academia - tend to accept that truth is not absolute, that culture is a construct and many have become aware that there is a continuous struggle for hegemony in discourse. Add to that that Stuart Hall’s vision of a world in which the media finally is a free for all who want to make themselves heard has come true. The internet has made it much harder to exclude marginalized communities. This finding is not altogether wrong, as the internet was central to mobilizing protest in e.g. the Arab Spring revolt. Yet discourse has not become more rational. What we also see is a triumphant return of right-wing movements, which - to reference Rainer Zimmermann – engage in “savage thought” on and through the net. And while I concur with him that their dominant discourse is irrational and abandons facticity, I am arguing that all this is directly related to the situation of the Humanities. The arguments of the latest wave of right-wing intellectuals show an embarrassing kinship with those of the left-wing Cultural Studies Project. White supremacy ideologue Richard Spencer (a former student under Marcuse disciple Paul Gottfried), e.g. reconciles, with ease, liberal ideas of identity politics with racism. But what may be more instructive will be a discussion of two phenomena that the right loves to exploit in their struggle for hegemony: “alternative facts” and “fake news”. Although lies and canards are as old as journalism itself, it will become apparent that they have evolved into new breeds in the digital age. They also are cultural studies’ illegitimate brainchildren. The dynamics of the internet in combination with the belief in constructivism is proving to be toxic. My presentation will look at the “alternative facts” and “fake news” of the alt-right in the USA and show how their creators make use of postulates and practices more commonly associated with cultural studies (and postmodernist thought). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sciforum-010311 | Philosophy of Information Leading to the Fundamental Transformation of Philosophy | , | N/A |
Show Abstract |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philosophy of information should not be taken as the study of philosophical problems in information science and information technology, nor it should be considered as a certain philosophy branch which is affiliated to or can be summed up into any existing traditional philosophy. “Partition of existential field” is the highest paradigm of philosophy; and only changes in the highest paradigm can constitute the revolution of philosophy. Philosophy of information has triggered radical changes in the highest paradigm of philosophy for the first time, so it will certainly bring about the revolution of philosophy. |
Registration
For registration, please visit the summit home page https://is4si-2017.org/
https://is4si-2017.org/registration/
Venue
Call for Conferences
CONFERENCES
For information about conferences and their calls, please visit:
Important Dates
IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES
For information about dates and deadlines please visit summit home page: https://is4si-2017.org
https://is4si-2017.org/submissions/
About This Conference
ABOUT THE TOPICS
Digitalization for a Sustainable Society: Embodied, Embedded, Networked, Empowered through Information, Computation & Cognition!
Our global society becomes increasingly data–information– knowledge based. This is often called “digitalization” or “digital society”. What does digitalization mean for us as individuals, as societies and on a global scale, how does it affect our lives? Mobile devices, cloud computing, envisioned ”internet of things” and “internet of everything” have already started to generate what is commonly called “big data”. Intelligent objects speaking for themselves, communicating with each other are being developed to create “cyber physical systems” of “communicating things” – in the production, transportation and other infrastructures, in the city as a whole (“intelligent city”) and at home (“intelligent homes”).
What will be the human’s role in this emerging “digital” society? The social and technological innovations that are intended to boost cognition, communication and co-operation are ambiguous: their potential to advance information commons is not fully exploited. A breakthrough to a global, sustainable information society must establish an information commons as a cornerstone of a new programme for coping with the challenges of the information age.
CALL FOR PARTICIPATION
We aim at gathering different stakeholders to meet and discuss, to present the state of the art and to envisage possible futures. Networked we hope to expand our shared knowledge for promotion of sustainable digitalization of society.
The focus of the reflection of information studies is twofold:
– on the impact of the sciences of information and its dynamics (computation) as well as their role as meaning-generators (cognition).
– on the foundations of the sciences of information, computation, communication and cognition.
Summit is planned as gathering of workshops, conferences, tracks, poster sessions, demonstrations and similar, connected by common plenary talks, social events, exhibitions, discussions, etc.
EVENTS PROPOSALS
We invite participants from research institutions, companies, civil society organizations and other stakeholders in the process of digitalization for sustainable development to send us proposals for the following events as a part of is4si-2017 summit:
- conferences
- workshops
- panels
- tutorials
- exhibitions
- poster sessions
- demonstrations
- artistic events or similar
Proposals should be in PDF format and include the following information
- Workshop/Symposium/Tutorial title.
- Proposers’ names, titles, affiliations, and primary contact email.
- Program outline (including preference for half- or full-day event, estimated numbers of orals, posters, and invited talks).
- Names and short information about any tentative/confirmed invited speakers
- Expected number of attendees.
- Any special space or equipment requests.
Please observe that the deadlines are common for the summit and given at https://is4si-2017.org/submissions/
Conference Schedule
Please, visit
https://is4si-2017.org/program/ and
https://is4si-2017.org/schedule/
for full information.
Travel & Registration Information
Conference Organizers
General Chair
Prof. Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, President IS4SI
Dept. of Applied Information Technology, University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology
Local Chair
Dr. Pär Meiling, Dept. of Applied Information Technology, University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology
More information:
Proceedings & Editors
Registration
For registration, please visit the summit home page https://is4si-2017.org/
https://is4si-2017.org/registration/
Call for Conferences
For information about conferences and their calls, please visit:
Important Dates
IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES
For information about dates and deadlines please visit summit home page: https://is4si-2017.org
List of Keynotes & Videos
CONFERENCE DTMD 2017. The Difference That Makes a Difference
Chairman: David Chapman
Please visit The Difference That Makes a Difference (DTMD 2017) for additional information.
Session Chair
Dr. David Chapman
Show all published submissions (6) Hide published submissions (6)
Submissions
List of Papers (6) Toggle list
CONFERENCE FIS 2017. The Seventh International Conference on the Foundations of Information Science
Chairs of this Conference: Marcin J. Schroeder and Pedro C. Marijuán
Please, visit The Seventh International Conference on the Foundations of Information Science (FIS 2017) for full information.
Session Chairs
Dr. Pedro C. Marijuan
Dr. Pedro C. Marijuán, Aragon Institute of Science Health (I+CS)
Dr. Marcin J. Schroeder, Akita International University
Show all published submissions (14) Hide published submissions (14)
Submissions
List of Papers (14) Toggle list
CONFERENCE ICPI 2017. Third International Conference on Philosophy of Information
Chairman: Kun Wu (邬)
Please, visit Third International Conference on Philosophy of Information (ICPI 2017) for full information.
Session Chairs
Professor Wu Kun, Xi'an Jiaotong University
Dr. Joseph Brenner, International Center for Transdisciplinary Research, Paris
Show all published submissions (43) Hide published submissions (43)
Submissions
List of Papers (43) Toggle list
CONFERENCE IFEIS. International Forum on Ecology of Information Studies
Chair: Y. X. Zhong (钟义信)
Please, visit International Forum on Ecology of Information Studies (IFEIS) for additional information.
Session Chair
Professor Yixin Zhong
Show all published submissions (25) Hide published submissions (25)
Submissions
List of Papers (25) Toggle list
KEYNOTES. KEYNOTES
Show all published submissions (6) Hide published submissions (6)
Submissions
List of Papers (6) Toggle list
PANELS. PANELS
Show all published submissions (2) Hide published submissions (2)
Submissions
List of Papers (2) Toggle list
PARALLEL PANEL 4. POSSIBILITY AND ACTUALITY: TOWARDS A MANIFESTO ON EVOLUTIONARY SYSTEMS
Session Chairs
Dr. Rainer Zimmermann
Dr. Wolfgang Hofkirchner
Show all published submissions (6) Hide published submissions (6)
Submissions
List of Papers (6) Toggle list
SYMPOSIUM 1. Doctoral Symposium
Chairs
Guillermo Rodriguez-Navas, Mälardalen University, Sweden
Diana Arellano, Filmakademie Baden-Württemberg, Germany
Please, visit Doctoral Symposium for additional information.
Session Chairs
Dr. Guillermo Rodriguez-Navas
Dr. Diana Arellano
Show all published submissions (10) Hide published submissions (10)
Submissions
List of Papers (10) Toggle list
SYMPOSIUM 2. Morphological Computing and Cognitive Agency
Chairs
Robert Lowe, University of Skövde and Gothenburg University, Sweden
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Chalmers University of Technology and Mälardalen University, Sweden
Keynote speakers (confirmed):
Christian Balkenius (Lund University. Sweden)
Lorenzo Magnani (Pavia University, Italy)
Yulia Sandamirskaya (ETH, Zurich, Switzerland)
Jordi Valverde (Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain)
Ron Chrisley (University of Sussex, UK)
John Spencer (University of East Anglia, UK)
Please visit Morphological Computing and Cognitive Agency Symposium website for additional information.
Session Chair
Professor Robert Lowe
Show all published submissions (7) Hide published submissions (7)
Submissions
List of Papers (7) Toggle list
SYMPOSIUM 3. Cognitive Distributed Computing and its Impact on IT (Information Technology) as We Know It
Chair
Rao Mikkilineni, C3DNA, California, US
Please visit the Cognitive Distributed Computing and its impact on IT as We Know It Symposium website for full information.
Session Chair
Dr. Rao Mikkilineni
Show all published submissions (5) Hide published submissions (5)
Submissions
List of Papers (5) Toggle list
SYMPOSIUM 6. Theoretical Information Studies
Chair
Mark Burgin, USA University of California, Los Angeles
Keynote speakers
Session in the above symposium: Information In The Complex Plane
Organisers
Joseph E. Brenner, Jiaotong University of Social Sciences, Xi’An, China
Gerhard Luhn, TU Dresden, Germany
Please visit http://is4si-2017.org/theoretical-information-studies/ for additional information.
Session Chairs
Dr. Mark Burgin, UCLA
Mr. Mark Burgin
Show all published submissions (26) Hide published submissions (26)
Submissions
List of Papers (26) Toggle list
WORKSHOP 1. DISTRIBUTED RESPONSIBILITY IN TIMES OF BIG DATA AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS
Organizers
Michael Funk, University of Vienna, Austria
Janina Loh (nee Sombetzki), University of Vienna, Austria
Sabine Thuermel, Technische Universität München. Munich, Germany
Session Chairs
Dr. Michael Funk
Dr. Sabine Thürmel
Dr. Janina Loh
WORKSHOP 2. HABITS AND RITUALS
Organizer
Raffaela Giovagnoli, Pontifical Lateran University, Rome, Italy
Invited speakers
Stephen Kepnes, Colgate University, NY, USA
Chandana Chakrabarti, Institute of Cross Cultural Studies and Academic Exchange, USA
Søren Brier, CBS – Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark
Session Chair
Dr. Raffaela Giovagnoli
Show all published submissions (9) Hide published submissions (9)
Submissions
List of Papers (9) Toggle list
WORKSHOP 3. TRANSHUMANISM – THE PROPER GUIDE TO A POSTHUMAN CONDITION OR A DANGEROUS IDEA?
Organizers
SIG Emergent Systems, Information and Society (supported by the Leibniz-Sozietät der Wissenschaften zu Berlin and the Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science) and Forum Computer Professionals for Peace and Social Responsibility (FIfF), Germany
Program Committee
Wolfgang Hofkirchner, Vienna University of Technology, Austria,
Hans-Jörg Kreowski, University of Bremen, Germany,
Tomáš Sigmund, University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic,
Christian Stary, Johannes Kepler Universität, Linz, Austria,
Sabine Thürmel, Technische Universität München. Munich, Germany
Session Chairs
Dr. Wolfgang Hofkirchner
Professor Hans-Jörg Kreowski, University of Bremen
Dr. Tomáš Sigmund
WORKSHOP 4. PLANNING WORKSHOP FOR THE BOOK PROJECT FOR THE BOOK SERIES
“Gothenburg Book: A Compendium of Problems in Information Studies”
Organizers
Mark Burgin, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
Session Chairs
Mr. Mark Burgin
Professor Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dr. Mark Burgin, UCLA
Show all published submissions (1) Hide published submissions (1)
Submissions
List of Papers (1) Toggle list
WORKSHOP 5. DIGITAL NETIZENS AT THE CROSSROADS OF SHARING AND PRIVATISING
Organizers
IG Emergent Systems, Information and Society (supported by the Leibniz-Sozietät der Wissenschaften zu Berlin and the Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science) and the Institut für Design Science München
Wolfgang Hofkirchner, Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science, Vienna, Austria; Institut für Design Science München
José María Díaz Nafría, University of León, Spain; Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena, Ecuador; Munich University of Applied Sciences, Germany; Institut für Design Science München
Invited speakers:
Jens Alwood, Department of Applied Information Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Fredrika Lagergren Wahlin, Department of Applied Information Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Luca Rossi, IT University of Copenhagen, Danmark
Christina Neumayer, IT University of Copenhagen, Danmark
Programme committee:
Mark Carrigan, Research Fellow in the Centre for Social Ontology at the University of Warwick, The Sociological Review, UK
Christopher Coenen, Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, Germany
José María Díaz Nafría, University of León, Spain; Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena, Ecuador; Munich University of Applied Sciences, Germany; Institut für Design Science München
Klaus Fuchs-Kittowski, Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Technik Berlin, Germany
Thomas Herdin, University of Salzburg, Austria
Wolfgang Hofkirchner, Vienna University of Technology; Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science, Vienna, Austria; Institut für Design Science München (Chair)
Rainer E. Zimmermann, Institut für Design Science München; Munich University of Applied Sciences, Germany
Session Chairs
Dr. Wolfgang Hofkirchner
Dr. José María Díaz Nafría, Universidad de León
Show all published submissions (15) Hide published submissions (15)
Submissions
List of Papers (15) Toggle list
WORKSHOP 8. ARTISTIC EVENTS
Show all published submissions (1) Hide published submissions (1)
Submissions
List of Papers (1) Toggle list