Abstract
Lawyers and policy makers regularly and intentionally use ambiguous language in laws, regulations, and other legal texts. Although ambiguity has important policy benefits, such as interpretive resilience in an ever-changing world, it frustrates engineers and businesses seeking to build software systems that are demonstratively compliant with legal obligations. In this vision paper, we propose a method for modeling legal texts alongside models of software requirements or design artifacts. Our approach allows engineers to reason about regulatory ambiguity separately from their system under development and then trace interpretive decisions made about the legal text to affected requirements models. When a regulation is updated or case law demands a new interpretation of a regulation, engineers can evaluate the effect of the changes on the current design and respond appropriately. Inspired by User Requirements Notation, our proposed method can be implemented as an extension to Legal-GRL.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Pub. L. No. 104–191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996).
- 3.
All ambiguity identification is relative to the interpreter. There is no “ground truth” in ambiguity identification. However, for the sake of simplicity, we refer to Subpart (a)(1) as “containing” an ambiguity. In reality, without an interpreter, these same words are neither ambiguous nor unambiguous.
- 4.
Again, based on our interpretation.
References
Amyot, D.: JUCMNav. http://jucmnav.softwareengineering.ca/ucm/bin/view/ProjetSEG/WebHome, October (2016)
Amyot, D., Ghanavati, S., Horkoff, J., Mussbacher, G., Peyton, L., Yu, E.: Evaluating goal models within the goal-oriented requirement language. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25(8), 841–877 (2010)
Amyot, D., Horkoff, J., Gross, D., Mussbacher, G.: A lightweight GRL profile for i* modeling. In: Heuser, C.A., Pernul, G. (eds.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5833, pp. 254–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04947-7_31
Amyot, D., et al.: Towards advanced goal model analysis with jUCMNav. In: Castano, S., Vassiliadis, P., Lakshmanan, L.V., Lee, M.L. (eds.) ER 2012. LNCS, vol. 7518, pp. 201–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33999-8_25
Bhatia, J., Breaux, T.D., Reidenberg, J.R., Norton, T.B.: A theory of vagueness and privacy risk perception. In: 24th International RE Conference, Beijing, China, September 2016
Buhr, R., Casselman, R.: Use Case Maps for Object-Oriented Systems. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (1995)
Ghanavati, S.: Legal-URN Framework for Legal Compliance of Business Processes. PhD thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada (2013)
Gordon, D.G., Breaux, T.D.: Reconciling multi-jurisdictional legal requirements: a case study in requirements water marking. In: 20th IEEE International RE Conference, pp. 91–100, September 2012
ITU-T. User Requirements Notation (URN) – Language definition. Technical Report ITU-T Z.151, ITU-T, October 2012
Massey, A.K., Otto, P.N., Antón, A.I.: Evaluating legal implementation readiness decision-making. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 41(6), 545–564 (2015)
Massey, A.K., Otto, P.N., Hayward, L.J., Antón, A.I.: Evaluating existing security and privacy requirements for legal compliance. Requir. Eng. 15, 119–137 (2010)
Massey, A.K., Rutledge, R.L., Antón, A.I., Hemmings, J.D., Swire, P.P.: A strategy for addressing ambiguity in regulatory requirements. https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/54573 (2015)
Massey, A.K., Rutledge, R.L., Antón, A.I., Swire, P.P.: Identifying and classifying ambiguity for regulatory requirements. In: 22nd International Conference on RE, pp. 83–92, August 2014
Nigam, A., Arya, N., Nigam, B., Jain, D.: Tool for automatic discovery of ambiguity in requirements. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues 9(5) (2012)
Osborne, M., MacNish, C.K.: Processing natural language software requirement specifications. In: 2nd International Conference on RE, pp. 229–236, April 1996
Otto, P.N., Antón, A.I.: Addressing legal requirements in RE. In: 2007 15th IEEE International RE Conference, RE 2007, pp. 5–14 (2007)
Popescu, D., Rugaber, S., Medvidovic, N., Berry, D.M.: Reducing ambiguities in requirements specifications via automatically created object-oriented models. In: Paech, B., Martell, C. (eds.) Monterey Workshop 2007. LNCS, vol. 5320, pp. 103–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89778-1_10
Umber, A., Bajwa, I.S.: Minimizing ambiguity in natural language software requirements specification. In: 2011 Sixth International Conference on Digital Information Management, pp. 102–107, September 2011
van Bussel, D.: Detecting ambiguity in requirements specifications. PhD thesis, Tilburg University (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Massey, A.K., Holtgrefe, E., Ghanavati, S. (2017). Modeling Regulatory Ambiguities for Requirements Analysis. In: Mayr, H., Guizzardi, G., Ma, H., Pastor, O. (eds) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10650. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69904-2_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69904-2_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69903-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69904-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)