“an adaptation of the frbr model to legal norms,” joão...

An Adaptation of the FRBR Model to Legal Norms

João Alberto de Oliveira LimaSenado Federal/PRODASEN - Brazil

Abstract. FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) is an entity-relationship model developed in 1998 by IFLA (International Federation of LibraryAssociations and Institutions) as a new way to model bibliographic records. Itsmain feature is the recognition of four entities (Work, Expression, Manifestation,and Item) representing different levels of abstraction of a certain work. This paperproposes an adaptation of the FRBR model to the modelling of the several levels ofabstraction of a legal norm.

Keywords: Abstraction, Legal Norms, FRBR, Entity Relationship Model.

1. Introduction

According to Edsger W. Dijkstra (1972, p. 864) “the purpose of abstrac-tion is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which onecan be absolutely precise”.

Whenever we mention a certain legal norm, which entity do wemean? The original text promulgated after the legislative process? Orthe compiled version of such norm for the present date, which somebodyhas edited? Or are we speaking about a version of such norm translatedinto another language? Or are we speaking about the content of acertain PDF file presenting the original text with an URL (UniformResource Locator) address available in a government site? A systemthat tries to model all these examples of entities as one singular entitywill not allow for an adequate representation of the various relationshiptypes between these entities.

Abstraction seen as a process is one of the most valuable modellingtools, and its use allows for the identification of entities at differentabstraction levels in the universe of discourse. Abstraction seen as aproduct is the resulting model, which is used as a reference to systemsdevelopment, since it expresses precisely the main existing entities andrelationships.

The purpose of this paper is to adapt FRBR (Functional Require-ments for Bibliographic Records), an example of judicious and adequateuse of the abstraction process in the world of bibliographic records, tothe world of legal records and norms.

main.tex; 10/02/2007; 1:22; p.53

54 João Alberto de Oliveira Lima

The next session presents a brief history of cataloguing; thereafter,a short presentation of the FRBR model; and finally, considerations onadapting FRBR to legal norms.

2. Cataloguing and FRBR

Information Science and, more specifically, Library Science have beentrying to establish standards of information organization and classifi-cation long before the first computers made their entrance in modernworld. For instance, Anthony Panizzi’s work, “Rules for the Compila-tion of the Catalogue” published in 1841, introduces 91 rules for bookcataloguing. With the introduction of computers, the creation of a stan-dard format was sought out in order to record cataloguing informationon available books in a library. At present, the more used format forbibliographic description in the world is MARC (Machine ReadableCataloguing) format, created in the seventies by the American Libraryof Congress. Recently, the MARCXML format was published by Libraryof Congress. However, it was only a translation from MARC fields andsubfields to XML elements and attributes, i.e., it was an evolution atthe syntactic level only, leaving the semantics unchanged.

A MARC record represents several entities at different abstractionlevels, from the work authorship (higher, conceptual level) to an exem-plar of the work stored in a library shelf (lower, physical level). Thisraises a problem in case you intend to establish relationships betweenthose entities.

2.1. FRBR

In 1998, IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations andInstitutions) published the document Functional Requirements for Bib-liographic Records. Although the work that originated the model wasstarted in 1990, its origins goes back to 1961, with the publication of“Statement of Cataloguing Principles”, also known as Paris Principles.The FRBR document presents the conceptual model using Chen’s En-tity Relationship Model (1976), and divides entities into three groups:

− Group 1: consists of the products of intellectual or artistic endeav-our;

− Group 2: comprises those entities responsible for intellectual orartistic content, safeguard or dissemination of Group 1 entities;and

− Group 3: includes the entities that serve as subject of Works.

main.tex; 10/02/2007; 1:22; p.54

An Adaptation of the FRBR Model to Legal Norms 55

Below, a brief description of each group. See (IFLA, 1998) for moredetails.

2.1.1. FRBR - Group 1: Work, Expression Manifestation, and ItemEntities called Work, Expression, Manifestation, and Item, as shownin Fig. 1, represent the different abstraction levels of an intellectual orartistic work. A Work is a distinct intellectual or artistic creation atthe conceptual level. Since it is an abstract entity, it may be difficult todetermine its boundaries precisely. For instance, text reviews or updatesare seen as different “expressions” of the same “work”. But to whichextent do changes generate a new work? Furthermore, an Expressionis the specific intellectual or artistic form that a work takes each timeit is ‘realized.’ It is an abstract entity as well (at the conceptual level),which can be identified, for instance, in a translation work from theoriginal text of a work to another language, thus generating a new “ex-pression” of the same work. It has already been stated that any changein the original content by means of revision and/or updates originates anew expression. Fig. 2 shows other existing relationships: work-to-work,expression-to-expression, and expression-to-work relationships.

Figure 1. Group 1 FRBR Entities. (IFLA, 1998, p.13, adapted)

A Manifestation is the physical embodiment of an “expression” ofa “work”. The relationship between “expression” and “manifestation” isa “many-to-many” cardinality relationship.

Finally, an Item is a single exemplar of a “manifestation” of an“expression” of a “work”. Such level of detail allows for the descriptionof features of a specific example, like information on a book reserve or

main.tex; 10/02/2007; 1:22; p.55


Figure 2. Work and Expression Relationships. (Aalberg, 1998, p.13, adapted)

loan request or even identification of an exemplar of the work with theauthor’s autograph.

2.1.2. FRBR - Group 2: Person, Corporate BodyA Person is an individual consistently identified and independent fromthe way his name appears in a determined expression or manifestationof a work. Corporate Body is an organization, a group of individualsand/or organizations acting as a unit.

The relationships between the Person and Corporate Body Entitiesand Group 1 Entities are depicted in Fig. 3.

Figure 3. Group 2 FRBR Entities. (IFLA, 1998, p.14, adapted)

main.tex; 10/02/2007; 1:22; p.56


2.1.3. FRBR - Group 3: Concept, Object, Event, PlaceGroup 3 Entities serve as subject descriptors of Group 1 entity Work.The entity Concept is defined as an abstract notion or idea. Thus, aconcept may be something of a general nature or something specific andprecise. An Object is defined as a material thing. The entity Eventis used to represent an action or occurrence, as for example, historicevents, epochs or time periods. A Place represents locations, as a town,state or country; a historic or present location; geographical features,as a river or a mountain. Fig. 4 shows the relationships between entitiesthat serve as Work subject descriptors. The diagram shows that notonly Group 3 Entities serve as subject descriptors, but also Groups 1and 2 Entities may be used to index the subject matter of a work.

Figure 4. Subject Relationships. (IFLA, 1998, p.15, adapted).

One of the FRBR main innovations is the perception of the existingrelationships between these entities which before were merged withinthe MARC record.

3. Adaptation of the FRBR Model to Legal Norms

The application of the FRBRModel to the world of legal norms does notrequire any structural changes. Each entity of the model can be mappedto the representation of entities and relationships of the universe of legalnorms.

main.tex; 10/02/2007; 1:22; p.57


To present the considerations on adapting this model to legal normswe shall adopt the same organization of groups of entities.

3.1. FRBR Adaptation (Group 1)

A legal norm has two dimensions: content and form. The former is thesemantic content that it carries, and the latter is the articulated textthat composes it.

In our proposal, the entity Work (FRBR) refers to the “content of thelegal norm”, and the entity Expression refers to the “form” as definedby its original text. We have listed below some types of expression fora legal norm:

− Original Text – legally valid text;

− Republished Text – legally valid text (optional);

− Rectifying Text – legally valid text rectifying a text that has al-ready been published;

− Updated Text – non official version updated to a certain date by apublisher;

− Translated Text – non official version translated into another lan-guage by a translator;

− Metadata – abridged version basically comprising metadata com-piled by an information analyst;

“Metadata” is a “Work” and an “Expression” related to the Expres-sion “Original Text” by a relationship (expression-to-expression rela-tionship). Example of this configuration is depicted in Fig. 2 by the“Summarization” relationship of the entity “Expression”. We presentbelow an example of Work and Manifestation according to adaptation:- W1 – “Act n◦ 9 691, July 22, 1998 [creator = National Congress]”

- E1.1 – “Original Text”- E1.2 – “Rectifying Text”

- W2 – “Metadata to Act n◦ 9 691, 07/22/1998 [creator = Federal Senate]”

- E2.1 – “Metadata”

The entity “Manifestation” (FRBR) refers to the realization of thepublishing work, which, in our proposal, is officially and mandatorilyrepresented by the government press, and by the government bodiesthat publish or consolidate legislation texts, either on paper or in theInternet. With the inclusion of manifestations, the configuration of theabove example is as follows:

main.tex; 10/02/2007; 1:22; p.58


- W1 – “Act n◦ 9 691, 07/22/1998 [creator = National Congress]”

- E1.1 – “Original Text”- M1.1.1 – “Official Publication in the Federal Journal, 07/23/1998”- M1.1.2 – “Publication in the Federal Senate web site, 07/24/1998”

- E1.2 – “Rectifying Text”- M1.2.1 – “Official Publication in the Federal Journal, 07/24/1998”

- W2 – “Metadata to Act n◦ 9 691, 07/22/1998 [creator = Federal Senate]”

- E2.1 – “Metadata”- M2.1.1 – “Publication in the Federal Senate web site, 07/24/1998”

Finally, Item (FRBR) refers to a univocally identified exemplar ofa certain manifestation, which may be unique or not, on paper or indigital format. While the Item is identified by an URL, the Work orExpression instances can be identified by an URN (Uniform ResourceName) like the Italian Norme in Rete Project. Our example will nowhave the following structure:

- W1 – “Act n◦ 9 691, 07/22/1998 [creator = National Congress]”

- E1.1 – “Original Text”- M1.1.1 – “Official Publication in the Federal Journal, 07/23/1998”

- I1.1.1.1 – Exemplar on Paper in the National Library- I1.1.1.2 – Exemplar on Paper in the Library of the Federal

Senate- M1.1.2 – Publication in the Federal Senate web site, 07/24/1998”

- I1.1.2.1 – <http://www6.senado.gov.br/legislacao/ListaTexto.action?id=127883>

- E1.2 – “Rectifying Text”- M1.2.1 – “Official Publication in the Federal Journal, 07/24/1998”

- I1.2.1.1 – Exemplar on Paper in the National Library

- W2 – “Metadata of Act n◦ 9 691, 07/22/1998 [creator = Senate]”

- E2.1 – “Metadata”- M2.1.1 – “Publication in the Federal Senate web site, 07/24/1998”

- I2.1.1.1 – <http://www6.senado.gov.br/legislacao/DetDoc.action?id= 149629>


Group 2 entities are identified according to the legislative process of thenorm in question. For example, the Federal Constitution, the country’smain body of rules, is normally created and realized by a ConstituentNational Assembly, and produced by the National Press. In Brazil’s

main.tex; 10/02/2007; 1:22; p.59


case, the 1988 Constitution, art. 59, lists 7 types of norms prepared bythe legislative process.

Table I identifies the roles of “Creator of the Work” and “Editor ofthe Expression” played by Official Agents according to the type of act.In the cases listed in Table I, the role of the “Manifestation Producer”is played by the “National Press” by means of the publication in theFederal Journal, and the role of “Item Custodian” is officially played bythe National Library, and non-officially by any other agent that ownsthe Item.

Table I. Roles of the Agents according to the type of legal norm

Type Creator of the Work Editor of the Expres-sion

Federal Constitution Constituent National As-sembly

Constituent National As-sembly

ConstitutionalAmendment

National Congress National Congress

Supplementary Law National Congress President of the Republic

Ordinary Law National Congress President of the Republic

Delegated Law President of the Republic President of the Republic

Provisional Measure President of the Republic President of the Republic

Legislative Decree National Congress National Congress

Resolution National Congress National CongressFederal Senate Federal SenateHouse of Representatives House of Representatives

Although “Supplementary Laws” and “Ordinary Laws” are createdby the National Congress and passed on both Houses, they are actuallyrealized with the sanction of the President of the Republic, who has theauthority to put a veto to the whole or to part of the bill received fromCongress.

Art. 61 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution deals with the initiativeof supplementary and ordinary laws, and establishes that “laws canoriginate in any member or committee of the House of Representa-tives, the Federal Senate or the National Congress, the President of theRepublic, the Supreme Federal Court, the Higher Courts, the FederalProsecutor General and the citizens, in the manner and in the cases asspecified. . . ”. Although the initiative may belong to agents outside the

main.tex; 10/02/2007; 1:22; p.60


National Congress, the debate and deliberation procedures legitimatethe National Congress as the intellectual author, even when the bill hasnot been officially altered during its procedures in Congress.

The legislative process of the different types of legal norms is notsimple and must conform to the Standing Rules on both legislativeHouses. The purpose of this paper is not to exhaust details of thelegislative process, but to show that the entities of the FRBR modelmay be naturally adapted to the world of legal norms.


Subject indexing is closely linked to the stage of information retrieval,i.e., a good indexing task will have a direct positive impact upon thequality of information retrieval. Indexing tasks must be viewed as ex-isting relationships between indexer (descriptor) and indexed (target)entities, and not as simple listing of keywords in a subject field.

The FRBR model helps define various access ways to the works and,in this particular case, to the legal norms. Besides allowing indexing byConcept and Place, a common procedure in systems of legal informationretrieval, it is possible to use the entities Event, Object, Person andCorporate Body as subject of a legal norm or even use another Work,Expression, Manifestation or Item as indexing descriptors, as shown inFig. 4.

3.4. FRBR (Relationships)

Relationships between Group 1 entities, as shown in Fig. 1, do not needany adaptation or extension, when applied to legal norms, sufficing tofollow the suggestions listed in section “FRBR Adaptation (Group 1)”.Table II shows some Work-to-Work relationships, which are part of theFRBR model, and suggests new relationships applied to the world oflegal norms.

main.tex; 10/02/2007; 1:22; p.61


Table II. Work-to-Work Relationships

Relationship Roles Uses

Successor(FRBR)

has a successor →← is a successor to

Inform on the next and previousnorms on dealing with the samecontent (e.g.: new/previous civilcode).

Supplement(FRBR)

has a supplement →← supplements

Relationship between legal normsand respective annexes.

Summarization(FRBR)

has a summarization →← is a summarization of

Relationship between legal normsand metadata.

Whole-Part(FRBR)

has part →← is part of

Allows for the division of a le-gal norm into smaller parts (Part,Book, Title, Chapter, etc.)

Alteration alters →← is altered by

Relationship of alteration or revo-cation of provisions between thealtering and the altered norm;

Revocation Revokes →← is revoked by

Revocation relationship betweenlegal norms.

Regulation Regulates →← is regulated by

Regulation relationship betweennorms

The “Alteration” relationship between norms occurs at the levelWork-to-Work as shown on the Table above. The consolidation of thisalteration in the original text, if achieved, will generate a new expression(“consolidated text”) to the altered norm.

Table III shows some “Expression-to-Expression” relationships of thesame work, which are part of the FRBR model.

main.tex; 10/02/2007; 1:22; p.62


Table III. Expression-to-Expression Relationships of the same work.


Revision(FRBR)

has a revision →← is a revision of

Relationship between the revisedand the original norm.

Translation(FRBR)

has a translation →← is a translation of

Relationship between the originaltext and the translated version.

Table IV shows some “Expression-to-Expression” relationships of dif-ferent works that are part of the FRBR model, and suggests new rela-tionships applied to the world of legal norms. According to IFLA (1998,p. 73), when Expression-to-Expression relationships involve expressionsof different works, they include the same type of relationship acting atthe “Work-to-Work” level.

Table IV. Expression-to-Expression Relationships of different works.


Successor(FRBR)

has a successor →← is a successor to

specifies the previous and nextnorm in dealing with the samematter (i.e., new civil code / pre-vious civil code).

Supplement(FRBR)

has a supplement →← supplements

Relationship between legal normsand respective annexes.

Abridgement(FRBR)

has an abridgement →← is an abridgement of

Relationship between legal normsand Metadata.

Whole-Part(FRBR)

has part →← is part of

Allows the division of a legalnorm into smaller parts (Part,Book, Title, Chapter, etc.)

Alteration alters →← is altered by

Relationship of alteration or revo-cation of provisions between thealtering and the altered norm;

Revocation revokes →← is revoked by

Total revocation relationship bet-ween legal norms.

Regulation regulates →← is regulated by

Regulation relationship betweennorms

According to IFLA (1998, p.74), relationships between “Expressionof one Work” and a “Work” (different) are more frequently made when

main.tex; 10/02/2007; 1:22; p.63


it is not easy to identify the expression of the second work to whichreference is made. In this case, the same relationships as in Table IVoccur, except in the case of the relationship “Whole/Part”. One exampleof this relationship in the world of legal norms is the occurrence of asecond alteration in the same provision without a republishing of the“Updated Text” containing the first alteration. Since it is impossible toidentify the expression of the intermediate text, reference is made tothe Work.

Table V shows the “Manifestation-to-Manifestation” Relationshippresent in the FRBR model.

Table V. Manifestation-to-Manifestation Relationships


Reproduction(FRBR)

has reproduction →← is reproduced

Inform the existence of copy in micro-film or in a mirror site

Alternate(FRBR)

has alternate →← is alternate to

Informs an alternate manifestation

Whole/Part(FRBR)

has part →← is a part of

Allows for the division of a legal norminto smaller parts.

4. Conclusion

Similarly to Dijkstra’s quote in the beginning of this paper, Maria He-lena Diniz (2006, p. 354), author of works on Law, makes the followingconsiderations on the abstraction process:

“It must not be thought, as Miguel Reale so adequately states, thatwith the abstraction effort, inherent to the philosophic knowledge, wewill gradually lose contact with reality, suspended in a world of purefantasy since what differentiates and particularizes the “philosophic ab-straction” is that the more we overcome the contingent and accessory,the more we capture reality in its true essence”.

As we have tried to show in this paper the FRBR model resultingfrom a thorough work of analysis and abstraction achieved by IFLA,offers a rather simple reference model that can be applied to the or-ganization of legal norms. The proposed adaptation did not involvestructural changes but the information on how to map FRBR entitiesand relationships to the universe of legal norms.

main.tex; 10/02/2007; 1:22; p.64


Acknowledgements

My thanks to the Brazilian Federal Senate, Subsecretaria Especial deInformática do Senado Federal (PRODASEN) and Secretaria de In-formação e Documentação (SIDOC). I am grateful for comments andsuggestions by João Batista de Holanda Neto, Fernanda Passini Morenoand Flavio Roberto de A. Heringer.

References

Chen, P. P. The Entity-Relationship Model - Toward a Unified View of Data.Transaction on Database Systems, v.1, n.1, p.9-36. 1976.

Dijkstra, E. W. The Humble Programmer. Communications of ACM, v.15, n.10,p.859-866. 1972.

Diniz, M. H. Compêndio de Introdução à Ciência do Direito: Saraiva. 18ed, 589p,2006.

IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) - StudyGroup on. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, 144p. 1998.Available in: <http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf>

main.tex; 10/02/2007; 1:22; p.65

“an adaptation of the frbr model to legal norms,” joão...

Documents