E. Talapina, V. Yuzhakov, Daria Dvinskikh, A. Efremov, I. Chereshneva
Within the framework of this work, the actual state of data turnover in public administration and its legal regulation in Russia and abroad, the risks of developing data turnover, and existing legal restrictions have been analyzed. The features and possibilities of legal regulation of data circulation in public administration, focused on increasing its effectiveness and efficiency, in relation to the stages of the management cycle and types of public functions are revealed. This made it possible to formulate proposals for the formation of a comprehensive legal regulation of data turnover in public administration.
{"title":"Оборот данных в государственном управлении: перспективы правового регулирования (Data Turnover in Public Administration: Perspectives of Legal Regulation)","authors":"E. Talapina, V. Yuzhakov, Daria Dvinskikh, A. Efremov, I. Chereshneva","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3678040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3678040","url":null,"abstract":"Within the framework of this work, the actual state of data turnover in public administration and its legal regulation in Russia and abroad, the risks of developing data turnover, and existing legal restrictions have been analyzed. The features and possibilities of legal regulation of data circulation in public administration, focused on increasing its effectiveness and efficiency, in relation to the stages of the management cycle and types of public functions are revealed. This made it possible to formulate proposals for the formation of a comprehensive legal regulation of data turnover in public administration.","PeriodicalId":437731,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Public Interest in Access to Legal Information (Sub-Topic)","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126425677","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The enthusiasm for artificial intelligence (AI) as a source of solutions to problems is not new. In law, from the early 1980s until at least the early 2000s, considerable work was done on developing ‘legal expert systems.’ As the DataLex project, we participated in those developments, through research and publications, commercial and non-commercial systems, and teaching students application development. This paper commences with a brief account of that work to situate our perspective. The main aim of this paper is an assessment of what might be of value from the experience of the DataLex Project to contemporary use of ‘AI and law’ by free legal advice services, who must necessarily work within funding and other constraints in developing and sustaining such systems. We draw fifteen conclusions from this experience, which we consider are relevant to development of systems for free legal advice services. The desired result, we argue, is the development of integrated legal decision-support systems, not ‘expert systems’ or ‘robot lawyers’. We compare our insights with the approach of the leading recent text in the field, and with a critical review of the field over twenty-five years. We conclude that the approach taken by the DataLex Project, and now applied to free legal advice services, remains consistent with leading work in field of AI and law. The paper concludes with brief suggestions of what are the most desirable improvements to tools and platforms to enable development of free legal advice systems. The objectives of free access to legal information services have much in common with those of free legal advice services. The information resources that free access to law providers (including LIIs) can provide will often be those that free legal advice services will need to use to develop and sustain free legal advisory systems. There is therefore strong potential for valuable collaborations between these two types of services providers.
{"title":"Building Sustainable Free Legal Advisory Systems: Experiences from the History of AI & Law","authors":"G. Greenleaf, Andrew Mowbray, Philip Chung","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3021452","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3021452","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The enthusiasm for artificial intelligence (AI) as a source of solutions to problems is not new. In law, from the early 1980s until at least the early 2000s, considerable work was done on developing ‘legal expert systems.’ As the DataLex project, we participated in those developments, through research and publications, commercial and non-commercial systems, and teaching students application development. This paper commences with a brief account of that work to situate our perspective. The main aim of this paper is an assessment of what might be of value from the experience of the DataLex Project to contemporary use of ‘AI and law’ by free legal advice services, who must necessarily work within funding and other constraints in developing and sustaining such systems. We draw fifteen conclusions from this experience, which we consider are relevant to development of systems for free legal advice services. The desired result, we argue, is the development of integrated legal decision-support systems, not ‘expert systems’ or ‘robot lawyers’. We compare our insights with the approach of the leading recent text in the field, and with a critical review of the field over twenty-five years. We conclude that the approach taken by the DataLex Project, and now applied to free legal advice services, remains consistent with leading work in field of AI and law. The paper concludes with brief suggestions of what are the most desirable improvements to tools and platforms to enable development of free legal advice systems. The objectives of free access to legal information services have much in common with those of free legal advice services. The information resources that free access to law providers (including LIIs) can provide will often be those that free legal advice services will need to use to develop and sustain free legal advisory systems. There is therefore strong potential for valuable collaborations between these two types of services providers.","PeriodicalId":437731,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Public Interest in Access to Legal Information (Sub-Topic)","volume":"34 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114118172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The serials crisis in scientific publishing can be traced to the long duration of copyright protection and the assignment of copyright by researchers to publishers. Over-protection of scientific literature has enabled commercial publishers to increase subscription rates to a point at which access to scientific information has been curtailed with negative social welfare consequences. The so-called uniformity costs imposed by such over-protection can be addressed by tailoring intellectual property rights, either through legal change or private ordering.Current open access channels of distribution offer alternative approaches to scientific publishing, but neither the Green OA self-archiving nor the Gold OA author-pays models has yet achieved widespread acceptance. Moreover, recent proposals to abolish copyright protection for academic works, while theoretically attractive, may be difficult to implement in view of current legislative and judicial inclinations. Likewise, funder open access mandates such as the NIH OA Policy, which are already responsible for the public release of millions of scientific articles, suffer from various risks and political uncertainty.In this paper, I propose an alternative private ordering solution based on latency equilibrium values observed in open access stakeholder negotiation settings. Under this proposal, research institutions would collectively develop and adopt publication agreements that do not transfer copyright ownership to publishers, but instead grant publishers a one-year exclusive period in which to publish a work. This limited period of exclusivity should enable the publisher to recoup its publishing costs and a reasonable profit through subscription revenues, while restoring control of the article copyright to the author at the end of the exclusivity period. This balanced approach address the needs of both publishers and the scientific community, and would, I believe, avoid many of the challenges faced by existing open access models.
{"title":"Confronting the Crisis in Scientific Publishing: Latency, Licensing and Access","authors":"J. Contreras","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2015885","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2015885","url":null,"abstract":"The serials crisis in scientific publishing can be traced to the long duration of copyright protection and the assignment of copyright by researchers to publishers. Over-protection of scientific literature has enabled commercial publishers to increase subscription rates to a point at which access to scientific information has been curtailed with negative social welfare consequences. The so-called uniformity costs imposed by such over-protection can be addressed by tailoring intellectual property rights, either through legal change or private ordering.Current open access channels of distribution offer alternative approaches to scientific publishing, but neither the Green OA self-archiving nor the Gold OA author-pays models has yet achieved widespread acceptance. Moreover, recent proposals to abolish copyright protection for academic works, while theoretically attractive, may be difficult to implement in view of current legislative and judicial inclinations. Likewise, funder open access mandates such as the NIH OA Policy, which are already responsible for the public release of millions of scientific articles, suffer from various risks and political uncertainty.In this paper, I propose an alternative private ordering solution based on latency equilibrium values observed in open access stakeholder negotiation settings. Under this proposal, research institutions would collectively develop and adopt publication agreements that do not transfer copyright ownership to publishers, but instead grant publishers a one-year exclusive period in which to publish a work. This limited period of exclusivity should enable the publisher to recoup its publishing costs and a reasonable profit through subscription revenues, while restoring control of the article copyright to the author at the end of the exclusivity period. This balanced approach address the needs of both publishers and the scientific community, and would, I believe, avoid many of the challenges faced by existing open access models.","PeriodicalId":437731,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Public Interest in Access to Legal Information (Sub-Topic)","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125149226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：