Re: representing (human) rights as the UseCase in legal models

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Amit midha (
Date: Mon 17 Mar 2003 - 17:05:37 GMT

hello anton,
  my suggestion is that  you can represent the legal rights as use 
cases and the legal actors  as  regular actors,the normal 
relations include and extend can be used as inclusions and 
extensions of the legal rights as it seems very logical instead of 
looking out for something new relation

hope that helps
Amit Midha

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 Anton Vityaz wrote :
>Hello !
>In our research project (Legal system modeling) we use UML with 
>some extensions as meta-modeling language. This language reviewed 
>as the very important expressive tool for support lawmaking 
>process - as part of the Computer-Aided Legal System Engineering 
>(CALSE) Environment. During legal patterns investigation for 
>CALSE we found that one of the patterns - (human) rights - best 
>to represent as the use cases. So the question is there :)
>1. Is it any comments about alternative way to represent Right of 
>Legal Actors :)
>2. Due to the specific nature of the legal rights (mostly never 
>executed as is and always should be included into the every use 
>case that actor involved in the legal system) we can't find 
>appropriate relation between actor and use case at the UML. Today 
>we may use only two relations between use-cases -  include and 
>extend - and only one between actor and use case. It's important 
>to distinguish this relation from ordinary one. Our decision is 
>to create new type of the relation between UseCase and actor 
>which will emphasize on aggregative nature of those relation. Is 
>it appropriate solution ?
>Please suggest way to find nature of this beast.
>Anton Vityaz,
>IASA, Kiev, Ukraine.

Odomos - the only  mosquito protection outside 4 walls -
Click here to know more!

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view