You can find the legal vocab here and its integration with the grammar of modern positive law in the Working Paper on Text-driven Normativity and Legal Protection. The CS Vocabs on Data- and Code-driven systems will follow here and here.

A first step in developing a new hermeneutics is to develop an understanding of the meaning of relevant concepts in the domains of law and computer science.

Such concepts form part of a web of meaning, where concepts have a specific position in relation to other relevant concepts and function in the context of a domain-specific methodology.

For lawyers and computer scientists and engineers to even begin to understand each other, they will have to get acquainted with each other’s language games: with the way they USE relevant concepts when doing law or when building a computational architecture.

The purpose of this exercise, therefore, is not to develop a shared vocabulary, as this would imply mixing and confusing methodologies and - in a sense - betraying one’s own methodological integrity.

The purpose is also not to develop a lexicon of legal terminology, many of which are already available for a variety of jurisdictions. The objective is to elicit a small set of foundational concepts that in-form the technical legal language of modern positive law, notably notions such as ‘legal effect’, ‘legal norm’, ‘jurisdiction’ and ‘legal power’, which are the building blocks for all other legal concepts such as ‘tort’, ‘contract’, ‘legislation’, ‘judgment’, ‘criminal offence’, ‘public administration’, ‘nullity’ or ‘voidance’ and ‘duress’ or the ‘burden of proof’.

The purpose is to take a first step in the process of learning a new language, at least to the point of understanding where specific concepts fit, how they affect the outcome of both law and computational design and - in the end - how the inherent logic of both fields of application impact the kind of protection that law aims to offer.

A second step would concern the grammar of both fields, emphasising the dynamic and generative structures that drive the practice of law and the practice of computer science. On the side of law, this would entail an understanding of how lawyers research and determine positive law in relation to a specified problem, and how legal theorists frame the objectives and the operations of law. On the side of computer science, this will entail an understanding of how those who translate legal norms into computer code develop smart regulation or rules as code, and of how machine learning experts develop their research design for legal search or prediction of judgments.

Core to these grammars are the assumptions they embody and the implications these have for the normative orders that hold together local, national and international jurisdictions, societies and communities.

In effect, we have decided to integrate vocab and grammar into the legal and CS vocabs and into the working papers, to highlight the foundational interconnectedness of the conceptial framework and the use of these concepts in well built text-driven and code-driven corpora.

Legal norms ▪Rule of Law ▪Positive law ▪Jurisdiction ▪Legal effect ▪Sources of Law▪ Legal subject ▪ Legal right ▪ Legal power ▪ Legal reasoning and legal interpretation

CS Vocabs of Foundational Concepts

The concepts summed up below are an inventory of potentially foundational concepts

​Information ▪ data ▪ code ▪ cryptography ▪ encryption ▪ hashing ▪ blockchain ▪ distributed ledger technologies ▪ verifiability ▪ attack model ▪ key management ▪ security ▪ confidentiality ▪ integrity ▪ availability ▪ machine learning ▪ training dataset ▪ validation dataset ▪ test dataset ▪ feature space ▪ hypothesis space ▪ target function ▪ performance metric ▪ objective function ▪ accuracy ▪ precision ▪ sensitivity (recall) ▪ optimisation ▪ approximation ▪ baseline ▪ ground truth ▪ null hypothesis ▪ Gödel’s incompleteness theorems ▪ Church-Turing undecidability theorem