Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 455–484 | Cite as

Bridging narrative scenario texts and formal policy modeling through conceptual policy modeling

  • Sabrina Scherer
  • Maria A. Wimmer
  • Suvad Markisic
Article

Abstract

Engaging stakeholders in policy making and supporting policy development with advanced information and communication technologies including policy simulation is currently high on the agenda of research. In order to involve stakeholders in providing their input to policy modeling via online means, simple techniques need to be employed such as scenario technique. Scenarios enable stakeholders to express their views in narrative text. At the other end of policy development, a frequently used approach to policy modeling is agent-based simulation. So far, effective support to transform narrative text input to formal simulation statements is not widely available. In this paper, we present a novel approach to support the transformation of narrative texts via conceptual modeling into formal simulation models. The approach also stores provenance information which is conveyed via annotations of texts to the conceptual model and further on to the simulation model. This way, traceability of information is provided, which contributes to better understanding and transparency, and therewith enables stakeholders and policy modelers to return to the sources that informed the conceptual and simulation model. In this paper, we present the consistent conceptual description (CCD) as conceptual modeling approach to bridge the gap between narrative texts and formal policy models. The CCD meta-model with the underlying vocabulary for describing policy contexts is detailed. A case study introduces the application of the approach in the Open Collaboration for Policy Modeling project.

Keywords

Conceptual modeling Meta model Policy modeling Policy simulation 

References

  1. Bicking M, Wimmer MA (2011) A Scenario-based approach towards open collaboration for policy modelling. In: Janssen M, Scholl HJ, Wimmer MA, Tan YH (eds) Elelectronic government: the 10th conference on electronic government (EGOV 2011), Springer, Berlin, no. 6846 in LNCS, pp 223–234Google Scholar
  2. Budinsky F, Brodsky S, Merks E (2003) Eclipse modeling framework. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. Carroll J (1995) Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Cleland-Huang J, Gotel O, Zisman A (2012) Software and systems traceability. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Doran J, Gilbert N (1994) Simulating societies: an introduction. In: Gilbert N, Doron J (eds) Simulating societies:the computer simulation of social phenomena, chap 1. UCL Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Fensel D, Hendler J, Lieberman H, Wahlster W (2003) Introduction. In: Fensel D, Hendler J, Lieberman H, Wahlster W (eds) Spinning the semantic web: bringing the World Wide Web to its full potential, chap 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  7. Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (2005) Simulation for the social scientist, 2nd edn. Open University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Gómez-Sanz J, Pavón J (2003) Agent oriented software engineering with INGENIAS. In: Proceedings of the 3rd central and Eastern Europe conference on multiagent systems, Springer, LNCS, Citeseer, vol 2691, pp 394–403Google Scholar
  9. Gotel O, Cleland-Huang J, Hayes JH, Zisman A, Egyed A, Grnbacher P, Dekhtyar A, Antoniol G, Maletic J, Mger P (2012) Traceability fundamentals. In: Cleland-Huang J, Gotel O (eds) Software and systems traceability. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Gruber T (2009) Ontology. In: Liu L, zsu MT (eds) Encyclopedia of database systems, Springer, London. http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-definition-2007.htm
  11. Hassan S, Fuentes-Fernández R, Galán J, López-Paredes A, Pavón J (2009) Reducing the modeling gap: on the use of metamodels in agent-based simulation. In: 6th conference of the european social simulation association (ESSA 2009), pp 1–13Google Scholar
  12. Hesse W, Mayr HC (2008) Modellierung in der Softwaretechnik: eine Bestandsaufnahme. Informatik-Spektrum 31(5):377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iba T, Matsuzawa Y, Aoyama N (2004) From conceptual models to simulation models: model driven development of agent-based simulations. In: 9th workshop on economics and heterogeneous interacting agents, CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  14. Lotzmann U, Meyer R (2011) DRAMS—a declarative rule-based agent modelling system. In: Burczynski T, Kolodziej J, Byrski A, Carvalho M (eds) Proceedings of 25th European conference on modelling and simulation, European Council for Modelling and SimulationGoogle Scholar
  15. Lotzmann U, Wimmer MA (2012) Provenance and traceability in agent-based policy simulation. In: Klumpp M (ed) ESM’2012 The European simulation and modelling conference: modelling and simulation 2012, Eurosis, pp 203–207Google Scholar
  16. Ludewig J (2003) Models in software engineering: an introduction. Softw Syst Model 2:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mahr B (2009) Die Informatik und die Logik der Modelle. Informatik-Spektrum 32(3):228–249. doi:10.1007/s00287-009-0340-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Müller JP (2010) A framework for integrated modeling using a knowledge-driven approach. In: Swayne DA, Yang W, Voinov AA, Rizzoli A, Filatova T (eds) Proceedings of international environmental modelling and software society (iEMSs) 2010, http://www.iemss.org/iemss2010/index.php?n=Main.Proceedings
  19. Okuyama F, Bordini R, da Rocha Costa A (2005) ELMS: an environment description language for multi-agent simulation. Environments for Multi-Agent Systems, pp 91–108Google Scholar
  20. Pavón J, Gómez-Sanz J, Fuentes R (2006) Model driven development of multi-agent systems. In: Rensink A, Warmer J (eds) Model driven architecture foundations and applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4066, Springer, Berlin, pp 284–298Google Scholar
  21. Scherer S, Wimmer MA (2012) E-participation and enterprise architecture frameworks: an analysis. Inform Polity 17(2), http://iospress.metapress.com/content/q0t2235744207364/
  22. Schütte R (1998) Grundsätze orgnungsgemässer Referenzmodellierung, Neue betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, vol 233. Gabler, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  23. Stachowiak H (1973) Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Troitzsch KG (1990) Modellbildung und Simulation in den Sozialwissenschaften. Westdeutscher Verlag, OpladenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wimmer MA (2011) Open government in policy development: from collaborative scenario texts to formal policy models. In: Natarajan R, Ojo A (eds) Distributed computing and internet technology ICDCIT 2011, Springer, Berlin, no. 6536 in LNCS, pp 76–91Google Scholar
  26. Wimmer MA, Furdik K, Bicking M, Mach M, Sabol T, Butka P (2012a) Open collaboration in policy development: concept and architecture to integrate scenario development and formal policy modelling. In: Charalabidis Y, Koussouris S (eds) Empowering open and collaborative governance. Springer, Berlin, pp 199–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wimmer MA, Scherer S, Moss S, Bicking M (2012b) Method and tools to support Stakeholder engagement in policy development: The OCOPOMO Project. Int J Electron Govern Res 8(3):98–119, http://www.igi-global.com/article/method-tools-support-stakeholder-engagement/70078
  28. Winter A (2000) Referenz-Meta-schema für visuelle Modellierungssprachen. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, AakerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabrina Scherer
    • 1
  • Maria A. Wimmer
    • 1
  • Suvad Markisic
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations