Connectivity of workflow nets : the foundations of stepwise verification

Behavioral models capture operational principles of real-world or designed systems. Formally, each behavioral model defines the state space of a system, i.e., its states and the principles of state transitions. Such a model is the basis for analysis of the system’s properties. In practice, state spaces of systems are immense, which results in huge computational complexity for their analysis. Behavioral models are typically described as executable graphs, whose execution semantics encodes a state space. The structure theory of behavioral models studies the relations between the structure of a model and the properties of its state space. In this article, we use the connectivity property of graphs to achieve an efficient and extensive discovery of the compositional structure of behavioral models; behavioral models get stepwise decomposed into components with clear structural characteristics and inter-component relations. At each decomposition step, the discovered compositional structure of a model is used for reasoning on properties of the whole state space of the system. The approach is exemplified by means of a concrete behavioral model and verification criterion. That is, we analyze workflow nets, a well-established tool for modeling behavior of distributed systems, with respect to the soundness property, a basic correctness property of workflow nets. Stepwise verification allows the detection of violations of the soundness property by inspecting small portions of a model, thereby considerably reducing the amount of work to be done to perform soundness checks. Besides formal results, we also report on findings from applying our approach to an industry model collection.

Developing Co-operating Legal Knowledge Based Systems

In attempting to build intelligent litigation support tools, we have moved beyond first generation, production rule legal expert systems. Our work supplements rule-based reasoning with case based reasoning and intelligent information retrieval. This research, specifies an approach to the case based retrieval problem which relies heavily on an extended object-oriented / rule-based system architecture that is supplemented with causal background information. Machine learning techniques and a distributed agent architecture are used to help simulate the reasoning process of lawyers. In this paper, we outline our implementation of the hybrid IKBALS II Rule Based Reasoning / Case Based Reasoning system. It makes extensive use of an automated case representation editor and background information.

Teaching and using analogy in law

Analogy plays a central role in legal reasoning, yet how to analogize is poorly taught and poorly practiced. We all recognize when legal analogies are being made: when a law professor suggests a difficult hypothetical in class and a student tentatively guesses at the answer based on the cases she read the night before, when an attorney advises a client to settle because a previous case goes against him, or when a judge adopts one precedent over another on the basis that it better fits the present case. However, when it comes to explaining why certain analogies are compelling, persuasive, or better than the alternative, lawyers usually draw a blank. The purpose of this article is to provide a simple model that can be used to teach and to learn how analogy actually works, and what makes one analogy superior to a competing analogy. The model is drawn from a number of theories of analogy making in cognitive science. Cognitive science is the “long-term enterprise to understand the mind scientifically.” The field studies the mechanisms that are involved in cognitive processes like thinking, memory, learning, and recall; and one of its main foci has been on how people construct analogies. The lessons from cognitive science theories of analogy can be applied to legal analogies to give students and lawyers a better understanding of this fundamental process in legal reasoning.

Crunch time : how did the students perform?

Two newspaper numbers games based on simple arithmetic relationships are discussed. One is rather trivial, but very useful as an introduction to the second, whose potential to give students of elementary algebra practice in semi ad-hoc reasoning and to build general arithmetic reasoning skills was explored theoretically in an earlier paper. Preliminary results on the effectiveness of this general approach are presented, with student performance and feedback on an assignment task and formal examination included, and recommendations for future work.

Reason is too large : analogy and precedent in law

Hunter argues that cognitive science models of human thinking explain how analogical reasoning and precedential reasoning operate in law. He offers an explanation of why various legal theories are so limited and calls for greater attention to what is actually happening when lawyers and judges reason, by analogy, with precedent.

Don't think but look : a Gestalt interactionist approach to legal thinking

We propose here a new approach to legal thinking that is based on principles of Gestalt perception. Using a Gestalt view of perception, which sees perception as the process of building a conceptual representation of the given stimulus, we articulate legal thinking as the process of building a representation for the given facts of a case. We propose a model in which top-down and bottom-up processes interact together to build arguments (or representations) in legal thinking. We discuss some implications of our approach, especially with respect to modeling precedential reasoning and creativity in legal thinking.

Out of their minds: legal theory in neural networks

This paper examines the use of connectionism (neural networks) in modelling legal reasoning. I discuss how the implementations of neural networks have failed to account for legal theoretical perspectives on adjudication. I criticise the use of neural networks in law, not because connectionism is inherently unsuitable in law, but rather because it has been done so poorly to date. The paper reviews a number of legal theories which provide a grounding for the use of neural networks in law. It then examines some implementations undertaken in law and criticises their legal theoretical naïvete. It then presents a lessons from the implementations which researchers must bear in mind if they wish to build neural networks which are justified by legal theories.

Near knowledge : inductive learning systems in law

Induction is an interesting model of legal reasoning, since it provides a method of capturing initial states of legal principles and rules, and adjusting these principles and rules over time as the law changes. In this article I explain how Artificial Intelligence-based inductive learning algorithms work, and show how they have been used in law to model legal domains. I identify some problems with implementations undertaken in law to date, and create a taxonomy of appropriate cases to use in legal inductive inferencing systems. I suggest that inductive learning algorithms have potential in modeling law, but that the artificial intelligence implementations to date are problematic. I argue that induction should be further investigated, since it has the potential to be an extremely useful mechanism for understanding legal domains.

The Credit Act Advisory System (CAAS) : conversion from an expert system prototype to a C++ commercial system

CAAS is a rule-based expert system, which provides advice on the Victorial Credit Act 1984. It is currently in commercial use, and has been developed in conjunction with a law firm. It uses an object-oriented hybrid reasoning approach. The system was initially prototyped using the expert system shell NExpert Object, and was then converted into the C++ language. In this paper we describe the advantages that this methodology has, for both commercial and research development.

Designing intelligent litigation support tools : The IKBALS perspective

In the legal domain, it is rare to find solutions to problems by simply applying algorithms or invoking deductive rules in some knowledge‐based program. Instead, expert practitioners often supplement domain‐specific knowledge with field experience. This type of expertise is often applied in the form of an analogy. This research proposes to combine both reasoning with precedents and reasoning with statutes and regulations in a way that will enhance the statutory interpretation task. This is being attempted through the integration of database and expert system technologies. Case‐based reasoning is being used to model legal precedents while rule‐based reasoning modules are being used to model the legislation and other types of causal knowledge. It is hoped to generalise these findings and to develop a formal methodology for integrating case‐based databases with rule‐based expert systems in the legal domain.

Feeling the life : a look into the visual culture of life scientists

In order to deal with human biological problems, life scientists have started investigating artificial ways of generating tissues and growing cells ? leading to the evolution of tissue engineering. In this paper we explore visualization practices of life scientists working within the domain of tissue engineering. We carried out a small scale ethnographic exploration with 8 scientists and explored that the real value of scientists' experiments (and simulations), reasoning and collaborative processes go beyond their end results. We observed that these scientists' three-dimensional reasoning, corporeal knowledge and intimacy with biological objects and tools play a vital role in overall success.

Practical Advice for Entrepreneurs

I am interested in the psychology of entrepreneurship—how entrepreneurs think, decide to act, and feel. I recently realized that while my publications in academic journals have implications for entrepreneurs, those implications have remained relatively hidden in the text of the articles and hidden in articles published in journals largely inaccessible to those involved in the entrepreneurial process. This book is designed to bring the practical implications of my research to the forefront. I decided to take a different approach with this book and not write it for a publisher. I did this because I wanted the ideas to be freely available: (1) I wanted those interested in practical advice for entrepreneurs to be able to freely download, distribute, and use this information (I only ask that the content be properly cited), (2) I wanted to release the chapters independently and make chapters available as they are finished, and; (3) I wanted this work to be a dialogue rather than a one-way conversation—I hope readers email me feedback (positive and negative) so that I can use this information to revise the book. In producing the journal articles underpinning this book, I have had the pleasure of working with many talented and wonderful colleagues—they are cited at the end of each chapter. I hope you find some of the advice in this book useful.

Liability in negligence and the failure to disclose multiple risks in surgery : I would have been willing to run the risk

It has been 21 years since the decision in Rogers v Whitaker and the legal principles concerning informed consent and liability for negligence are still strongly grounded in this landmark High Court decision. This paper considers more recent developments in the law concerning the failure to disclose inherent risks in medical procedures, focusing on the decision in Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19. In this case, the appellant underwent a surgical procedure that carried a number of risks. The surgery itself was not performed in a sub-standard way, but the surgeon failed to disclose two risks to the patient, a failure that constituted a breach of the surgeon’s duty of care in negligence. One of the undisclosed risks was considered to be less serious than the other, and this lesser risk eventuated causing injury to the appellant. The more serious risk did not eventuate, but the appellant argued that if the more serious risk had been disclosed, he would have avoided his injuries completely because he would have refused to undergo the procedure. Liability was disputed by the surgeon, with particular reference to causation principles. The High Court of Australia held that the appellant should not be compensated for harm that resulted from a risk he would have been willing to run. We examine the policy reasons underpinning the law of negligence in this specific context and consider some of the issues raised by this unusual case. We question whether some of the judicial reasoning adopted in this case, represents a significant shift in traditional causation principles.

An approach for extending Building Information Models (BIM) to specifications

The Construction industry accounts for a tenth of global GDP. Still, challenges such as slow adoption of new work processes, islands of information, and legal disputes, remain frequent, industry-wide occurrences despite various attempts to address them. In response, IT-based approaches have been adopted to explore collaborative ways of executing construction projects. Building Information Modelling (BIM) is an exemplar of integrative technologies whose 3D-visualisation capabilities have fostered collaboration especially between clients and design teams. Yet, the ways in which specification documents are created and used in capturing clients' expectations based on industry standards have remained largely unchanged since the 18th century. As a result, specification-related errors are still common place in an industry where vast amounts of information are consumed as well as produced in the course project implementation in the built environment. By implication, processes such as cost planning which depend on specification-related information remain largely inaccurate even with the use of BIM-based technologies. This paper briefly distinguishes between non-BIM-based and BIM-based specifications and reports on-going efforts geared towards the latter. We review exemplars aimed at extending Building Information Models to specification information embedded within the objects in a product library and explore a viable way of reasoning about a semi-automated process of specification using our product library.

Reconnecting theory and practice in a pluralistic organizing context : issues and Aristotelian considerations

The overall purpose of this paper is to contribute to the theory - practice gap debate in organization studies, especially in pluralistic contexts such as project organizing. We briefly outline some of the current debates, i.e. modernist and postmodernist proposals, and the prevalent dichotomous thinking stance assumptions to better move beyond it, anchoring our contribution in the Aristotelian ethical and practical philosophy. We introduce the current state of the debate, part of the broad question of “science that matters”, and the various discourses between practice and academia within social sciences and more specifically organizational studies. We briefly critically summarize some main features of the two main philosophical stances (modernism, postmodernism), before presenting some key aspects, for the purpose of this paper, of the Aristotelian pre-modern practical and ethical philosophy. Then, we build on the foundations above established, discussing propositions to reconnect theory and practice according the Aristotelian ethical and practical philosophy, and some key implications for research notably in the following areas: roles played by practitioners and scholars, emancipatory praxeological style of reasoning, for closing the “phronetic gap” and reconnecting means and ends, facts and values, relation between collective praxis, development of “good practice” (standards), ethics and politics. We conclude highlighting the role of the suggested shift to an Aristotelian emancipatory style of reasoning for reconciling theory and practice.