5 ms·

Awesome to see someone trying to implement this idea, which I bet most people here have wished existed at some point. 1 scope Section121SinglePerson: 2

by Y_Y 6y ago

Awesome to see someone trying to implement this idea, which I bet most people here have wished existed at some point. 1 scope Section121SinglePerson: 2 rule requirements_ownership_met under condition 3 aggregate_periods_from_last_five_years of personal.property_ownership >=^ 730 day 4 consequence fulfilled Syntax (shown above with line numbers added) looks pretty clean and simple. Hopefully it is enough like natural language that non-techies wouldn't run away at first sight This probably won't cause a legal revolution tomorrow, but I hope it can be the start of a slow reform toward linguistic precision and machine-friendliness in legislation in the future. Also it's a bad name, since that's already the (local) name of a widely spoken natural language.

tirant 6y ago
Indeed, not the best name, but according to the README, the reason for chosing it was the following: "The language is named after Pierre Catala, a professor of law who pionneered the French legaltech by creating a computer database of law cases, Juris-Data. The research group that he led in the late 1960s, the Centre d’études et de traitement de l’information juridique (CETIJ), has also influenced the creation by state conselor Lucien Mehl of the Centre de recherches et développement en informatique juridique (CENIJ), which eventually transformed into the entity managing the LegiFrance website, acting as the public service of legislative documentation." I'm wondering what could result of the combination of smart contracts on a blockchain and this legal language.
- sanedigital 6y ago
  Which is a bit circular, because Pierre’s last name is a reference to the region that speaks that language, since he was born in neighboring Occitanie.
  - Y_Y 6y ago
    The somewhat ironic logic here being that a name referencing a place is very unlikely to come from that place. If Jordi moves from a Catalan area to an Occitan area then he (and his descendants) might be known as "Jordi the Catalan". It wouldn't be very useful to pick that as a name for someone who never left though. Of course nowadays people's names are mostly just symbolic, and you can move to England and still be called Johnny English. (In fact, as a sibling comment notes, maybe SQL is named after him.)
    - JasonFruit 6y ago
      Kind of like how, if someone's last name is Ashkenaz/Ashkenazi, you know they're a Sephardic Jew.
    - huachimingo 6y ago
      >Of course nowadays people's names are mostly just symbolic, and you can move to England and still be called Johnny English. This depends on the language. In Spanish (and by extension every romance language) no one would know the meaning of Alvarado (they would associate it with the name Álvaro, but just that) or González, but it would be awful to have a name like "Marcos Café/Marrón" (Marcus Brown) or "Carlos Panadero" (Carlos Baker).
      - Y_Y 6y ago
        What about Marcos Moreno? Or Carlos Zapatero? I take your point that the origins of surnames in Spain are typically unlike those in e.g. England, but there are plenty of common apellidos originating in physical descriptions, (far away) place of origin, or livelihood.
einpoklum 6y ago
It's a mistake to consider the law to be something absolute and logically-programmable.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  definitely a mistake for a common law based system, but maybe not for a napoleonic system.
  - mellavora 6y ago
    Goedel's incompleteness theory shows that an axiomatic system can either be consistent or complete, but not both. Software is an axiomatic system. Human behavior is NOT.
    - peterbb_net 6y ago
      I assume you refer to his results regarding axiomatic systems for arithmetic on natural numbers? If a law attempts to capture this, then, sure, it's problematic. But I don't that's very common. From what I've seen, formal methods for legal systems would take the "facts" of a case as given (assumptions), and deduce legal consequences of those.
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      >Software is an axiomatic system. Human behavior is NOT. I am not aware of any system of law that covers all possible human behavior. Common law systems theoretically could because part of the determination of what is covered is up to the courts, thus when you have a new human behavior it is uncertain if it is covered or not until you take it to court, but in a Napoleonic system the coverage of the law must be explicitly stated. Thus Napoleonic systems would try for consistent but not complete.
  - tom_mellior 6y ago
    Tax codes that spell out detailed computations are de facto "Napoleonic" (civil) even in a country that applies common law to other things, no?
josalhor 6y ago
> Also it's a bad name, since that's already the (local) name of a widely spoken natural language. As a native Catalan myself I was quite surprised by the title.
- im_dario 6y ago
  It seems to be properly reasoned, but I agree - as another native Catalan - that the title is surprising.
DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
as these things go they will create the illusion of improvement and the chances of things going wrong will be reduced in frequency but when they happen it'll be injustice at cloud-scale. These things have a long fat tail. Before I'm getting excited I want to know how it will be used in the developing world. E.g. perhaps we'll see an automatic smart-judge that goes from Cellebrite evidence directly to machine based torture and public execution with some blockchain sprinkled-on for good measure. See the latest dystopian piece on how Technology helps the developing world fight crime: https://cpj.org/2021/05/equipped-us-israeli-firms-botswana-police/ https://cpj.org/2021/05/equipped-us-israeli-firms-botswana-p...
valenterry 6y ago
> Hopefully it is enough like natural language that non-techies wouldn't run away at first sight Written law itself is also not "enough like natural language that non-law people wouldn't run away at first sight".
seanhunter 6y ago
This snippet begs all the important questions. How is the value of "aggregate_periods_from_last_five_years of personal.property_ownership" calculated? What does it mean to own a property? Does it count if you jointly own a property with someone else? If so, how much of a percentage of ownership counts as ownership? What about if for some part of the 730 days the ownership of the property was subject to dispute and it could have been owned or not owned by the person in question? The whole thing smacks of false precision to me. It's precise about things that are not legally complex to be precise about in the current system, and the language gives the false impression that it's actually going to be possible to be precise about everything. Secondly, it feels like it will have a similar drawback to sql[1] in that it seems on the surface to be non-technical, but actually requires significant technical expertise to avoid numerous beartraps and understand anything beyond the very most obvious. [1] Which was originally intended to be a formal version of natural language understandable to non-technical people (hence the original name SEQUEL "Structured English Query Language")
- arethuza 6y ago
  Another one that jumped out at me is if I own a property from noon one day to noon another day - is that one day or two days?
- elcomet 6y ago
  Those are not problems specific to this language. You need to define those terms properly to tax people adequately.
- tom_mellior 6y ago
  > How is the value of "aggregate_periods_from_last_five_years of personal.property_ownership" calculated? How is the value of "during the 5-year period ending on the date of the sale or exchange, such property has been owned and used by the taxpayer as the taxpayer’s principal residence for periods aggregating 2 years or more" calculated? > What does it mean to own a property? What does it mean to own a property under the non-formalized law? In the end, it means that if you file a tax return that the tax authorities aren't happy with, you can argue in front of a judge whether you think you own something, and the judge will decide whether you do. Based on this they will decide whether your tax return was valid or not. The technicalities of whether you own something in the eyes of the judge have nothing to do with whether your tax return was based on your reading of the law or on a tool based on this language. Either way you must decide whether you think you own something, and the rest of the computation is based on this decision. > Does it count if you jointly own a property with someone else? Search the paper for "joint returns", it quotes both the law and its formalization. > The whole thing smacks of false precision to me. It's precise about things that are not legally complex to be precise about in the current system <scratches head> The questions you raised do appear legally complex to me. But also I think you misunderstood the whole problem domain. The law currently spells out an algorithm for computing something. The inputs to this algorithm include questions like "do you legally own stuff". These inputs are outside the specific algorithm spelled out in Section so-and-so. They are similarly outside the specific algorithm spelled out in the computer program.
posterboy 6y ago
yeah they would run away screaming, this is too ambiguous /s

by Y_Y 6y ago

tirant 6y ago

Indeed, not the best name, but according to the README, the reason for chosing it was the following: "The language is named after Pierre Catala, a professor of law who pionneered the French legaltech by creating a computer database of law cases, Juris-Data. The research group that he led in the late 1960s, the Centre d’études et de traitement de l’information juridique (CETIJ), has also influenced the creation by state conselor Lucien Mehl of the Centre de recherches et développement en informatique juridique (CENIJ), which eventually transformed into the entity managing the LegiFrance website, acting as the public service of legislative documentation." I'm wondering what could result of the combination of smart contracts on a blockchain and this legal language.

sanedigital 6y ago
Which is a bit circular, because Pierre’s last name is a reference to the region that speaks that language, since he was born in neighboring Occitanie.
- Y_Y 6y ago
  The somewhat ironic logic here being that a name referencing a place is very unlikely to come from that place. If Jordi moves from a Catalan area to an Occitan area then he (and his descendants) might be known as "Jordi the Catalan". It wouldn't be very useful to pick that as a name for someone who never left though. Of course nowadays people's names are mostly just symbolic, and you can move to England and still be called Johnny English. (In fact, as a sibling comment notes, maybe SQL is named after him.)
  - JasonFruit 6y ago
    Kind of like how, if someone's last name is Ashkenaz/Ashkenazi, you know they're a Sephardic Jew.
  - huachimingo 6y ago
    >Of course nowadays people's names are mostly just symbolic, and you can move to England and still be called Johnny English. This depends on the language. In Spanish (and by extension every romance language) no one would know the meaning of Alvarado (they would associate it with the name Álvaro, but just that) or González, but it would be awful to have a name like "Marcos Café/Marrón" (Marcus Brown) or "Carlos Panadero" (Carlos Baker).
    - Y_Y 6y ago
      What about Marcos Moreno? Or Carlos Zapatero? I take your point that the origins of surnames in Spain are typically unlike those in e.g. England, but there are plenty of common apellidos originating in physical descriptions, (far away) place of origin, or livelihood.

einpoklum 6y ago

It's a mistake to consider the law to be something absolute and logically-programmable.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
definitely a mistake for a common law based system, but maybe not for a napoleonic system.
- mellavora 6y ago
  Goedel's incompleteness theory shows that an axiomatic system can either be consistent or complete, but not both. Software is an axiomatic system. Human behavior is NOT.
  - peterbb_net 6y ago
    I assume you refer to his results regarding axiomatic systems for arithmetic on natural numbers? If a law attempts to capture this, then, sure, it's problematic. But I don't that's very common. From what I've seen, formal methods for legal systems would take the "facts" of a case as given (assumptions), and deduce legal consequences of those.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    >Software is an axiomatic system. Human behavior is NOT. I am not aware of any system of law that covers all possible human behavior. Common law systems theoretically could because part of the determination of what is covered is up to the courts, thus when you have a new human behavior it is uncertain if it is covered or not until you take it to court, but in a Napoleonic system the coverage of the law must be explicitly stated. Thus Napoleonic systems would try for consistent but not complete.
- tom_mellior 6y ago
  Tax codes that spell out detailed computations are de facto "Napoleonic" (civil) even in a country that applies common law to other things, no?

josalhor 6y ago

> Also it's a bad name, since that's already the (local) name of a widely spoken natural language. As a native Catalan myself I was quite surprised by the title.

im_dario 6y ago
It seems to be properly reasoned, but I agree - as another native Catalan - that the title is surprising.

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago

as these things go they will create the illusion of improvement and the chances of things going wrong will be reduced in frequency but when they happen it'll be injustice at cloud-scale. These things have a long fat tail. Before I'm getting excited I want to know how it will be used in the developing world. E.g. perhaps we'll see an automatic smart-judge that goes from Cellebrite evidence directly to machine based torture and public execution with some blockchain sprinkled-on for good measure. See the latest dystopian piece on how Technology helps the developing world fight crime: https://cpj.org/2021/05/equipped-us-israeli-firms-botswana-police/ https://cpj.org/2021/05/equipped-us-israeli-firms-botswana-p...

valenterry 6y ago

> Hopefully it is enough like natural language that non-techies wouldn't run away at first sight Written law itself is also not "enough like natural language that non-law people wouldn't run away at first sight".

seanhunter 6y ago

This snippet begs all the important questions. How is the value of "aggregate_periods_from_last_five_years of personal.property_ownership" calculated? What does it mean to own a property? Does it count if you jointly own a property with someone else? If so, how much of a percentage of ownership counts as ownership? What about if for some part of the 730 days the ownership of the property was subject to dispute and it could have been owned or not owned by the person in question? The whole thing smacks of false precision to me. It's precise about things that are not legally complex to be precise about in the current system, and the language gives the false impression that it's actually going to be possible to be precise about everything. Secondly, it feels like it will have a similar drawback to sql[1] in that it seems on the surface to be non-technical, but actually requires significant technical expertise to avoid numerous beartraps and understand anything beyond the very most obvious. [1] Which was originally intended to be a formal version of natural language understandable to non-technical people (hence the original name SEQUEL "Structured English Query Language")

arethuza 6y ago
Another one that jumped out at me is if I own a property from noon one day to noon another day - is that one day or two days?
elcomet 6y ago
Those are not problems specific to this language. You need to define those terms properly to tax people adequately.
tom_mellior 6y ago
> How is the value of "aggregate_periods_from_last_five_years of personal.property_ownership" calculated? How is the value of "during the 5-year period ending on the date of the sale or exchange, such property has been owned and used by the taxpayer as the taxpayer’s principal residence for periods aggregating 2 years or more" calculated? > What does it mean to own a property? What does it mean to own a property under the non-formalized law? In the end, it means that if you file a tax return that the tax authorities aren't happy with, you can argue in front of a judge whether you think you own something, and the judge will decide whether you do. Based on this they will decide whether your tax return was valid or not. The technicalities of whether you own something in the eyes of the judge have nothing to do with whether your tax return was based on your reading of the law or on a tool based on this language. Either way you must decide whether you think you own something, and the rest of the computation is based on this decision. > Does it count if you jointly own a property with someone else? Search the paper for "joint returns", it quotes both the law and its formalization. > The whole thing smacks of false precision to me. It's precise about things that are not legally complex to be precise about in the current system <scratches head> The questions you raised do appear legally complex to me. But also I think you misunderstood the whole problem domain. The law currently spells out an algorithm for computing something. The inputs to this algorithm include questions like "do you legally own stuff". These inputs are outside the specific algorithm spelled out in Section so-and-so. They are similarly outside the specific algorithm spelled out in the computer program.

posterboy 6y ago

yeah they would run away screaming, this is too ambiguous /s