<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>AGILE: From Source of Law to Business Process Specification</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Alexander Boer</string-name>
          <email>A.W.F.Boer@uva.nl</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Tom van Engers</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Leibniz Center for Law University of Amsterdam</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>The knowledge management problems involved in managing the consequences of organizational change processes triggered by changes in the law, for instance for business processes, services, databases, fielded applications, forms and documents, and internal education, make a good case for application of some state-of-the-art concepts in legal knowledge representation. The recently started AGILE project addresses the legal dimension of management of organizational change processes. This paper introduces the AGILE project, and presents an initial overview of relevant relations between sources of law and the business processes and services of the administrative organization, based on concepts familiar in legal theory and legal knowledge representation. It also proposes the application of change-oriented features of the MetaLex XML standard to organizational change.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>Driven by the increasing legal convergence and legal complexity, an
increasing pace of organizational change in public administration, and
increased use of IT and web services, the interest in legal knowledge
representation in public administrations is gradually increasing but also
changing in nature.</p>
      <p>Initially interest was focused on the utility of fielding computer systems
built using a knowledge engineering approach; More recently the focus
shifted to the potential utility of knowledge representation for
comparative and for maintenance purposes, and for increasing the efficiency of
the organizational change process itself.</p>
      <p>Compared to the standards set by knowledge engineering research, fielded
systems in public administration and elsewhere that use explicit
knowledge representation to support decision making processes are technically
and theoretically straightforward. The required transparency, and the
great challenge real world knowledge representation poses for the
people implementing such systems, act as a natural limit to the complexity
of these decision support systems. The required functionality rarely by
itself justifies state-of-the-art legal knowledge representation.
As we will argue in section 1.1, however, the knowledge management
problems involved in managing the consequences of organizational change
processes triggered by changes in the law, for business processes, services,
databases, fielded applications, forms and documents, internal education,
etc, make a considerably better case for some state-of-the-art concepts
in legal knowledge representation.</p>
      <p>The recently started AGILE project, introduced in section 2, addresses
management of institutional change, sometimes driven by changing
legislation and sometimes by environmental factors.</p>
      <p>Section 3 presents an initial overview of relevant relations between sources
of law and the business processes and services of the administrative
organization, based on concepts familiar in legal theory and legal knowledge
representation. This account is a first, tentative step towards a design
method that should help organizations to adapt to new or changing
legislation.
1.1</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Background</title>
      <p>Inside public administrations, and on the interfaces between them, ICT
and Internet have a large impact. Some decision making processes are
nowadays assisted by computer applications, and others are more or less
autonomously performed by the computer.</p>
      <p>
        At the same time, service-oriented architectures are becoming the
prominent paradigm for building enterprise information systems, also in
administrative agencies. Service-orientation leads to new network arrangements
between administrative agencies for sharing data, etc. This development
in itself leads to attention for the adaptability and accountability issues
that arise (cf. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ]).
      </p>
      <p>The services in question are in an administrative setting often
implementations of public legal acts, performed by public legal personalities, based
in formal legislation. Legislation gives administrative organizations
public personality, defines what the core functions of public organizations are,
and what services they provide. It guides how the organization subdivides
itself into administrative units, how it organizes business processes inside
the organization, and eventually how the functions of the organization
are realized by civil servants and computer systems.</p>
      <p>Business process design and design of specialized computer systems are
both usually based on explicit models in various modeling languages of
what the business process or computer application should achieve. These
models are supposedly used as a specification of the objectives of an
organizational change process or application development process. When
legislation changes, these models are updated, and the organization’s
structures and computer programs have to be changed to conform to the
models.</p>
      <p>In the past these changes were conceived of as temporary interruptions of
long periods of everything staying the same. This was certainly the case
when the adaptation of existing systems was still considered a frightening
prospect: things did change but the changes where carefully orchestrated
to not impact existing procedures, network arrangements with other
organizations, and computer systems. But as the perceived capacity of
organizations to organize change processes increases, and the number of
fielded computer applications increases, so does the pace of change in
legislation directly affecting existing computer applications.
Tax legislation is for instance changed every year, leading to continuous
adaptation of relevant computer applications for next year and the years
after that, while the legislation of the present year and previous years is
still being applied. In the business process design literature, awareness
of this phenomenon has led to a new conception of the organization as
an entity that is constantly in the process of changing: the organization
is constantly conceptualizing and comparing what it is and what it is
becoming.</p>
      <p>Attention for knowledge representation of sources of law is very often
triggered by such administrative change processes driven by new
legislation and other sources of law, such as case law and internal written
policies.</p>
      <p>
        The change processes triggered by the legal system are increasingly
expensive, especially if they involve changes in ICT infrastructure.
Knowledge representation is seen as a means to potentially reduce costs and
increase efficiency through increased control over the knowledge
dimension of the change process. Our past work for the Dutch Tax and Customs
Administration (DTCA; cf. for instance [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]) was for instance clearly
related to the huge change process triggered by the complete overhaul of
the Dutch income tax law in 2001. The Juridisch Loket (cf. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ]) project
on pro bono legal assistance, and the DURP project on spatial planning
(cf. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]) were for instance also driven by an overhaul of legislation.
These trends have led to the AGILE project, described in the next section
of this paper.
2
      </p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>The AGILE Project</title>
        <p>In the AGILE project (acronym for Advanced Governance of
Information services through Legal Engineering) we aim at developing a design
method, distributed service architecture and supporting tools that
enable organizations – administrative and otherwise – to orchestrate their
legal information services in a networked environment.</p>
        <p>At issue is the adaptivity of ICT infrastructure, of business processes,
and of data and knowledge within the organization, given changing legal
demands and constraints.</p>
        <p>The AGILE project started in the second half of 2008 and will last for
four years. The project will use knowledge representation technology
developed within the semantic web community, OWL DL, as a starting
point, but will extend it where necessary with elements specific for the
legal domain or the objectives of the project.</p>
        <p>The primary purpose of modeling implementation of legislation in OWL
is to account for that implementation, to validate it, and to simulate
new service arrangements. Deployment of OWL-based services is not
intended: actual technical implementation has to take into account the
existing technical infrastructure of an organization, and modernizing
infrastructure is not the focus of the project.</p>
        <p>Complex Adaptive Systems Based on complex adaptive systems
(CAS) theory, the project will develop a service modeling and design
method that should help organizations to adapt to new or changing
legislation. The essence of CAS theory is the study of systems built of
individual agents (being persons, business units, or organizations) that
are capable of adapting as they interact with each other and with an
environment, in order to understand how the individual affects system-level
responses.</p>
        <p>
          The proposed method should take the resilience of existing systems,
dependencies on the environment, and the unpredictability of change
processes explicitly into account (cf. generally [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
          ]). The objective of this
part of the project is to improve the adaptability of ICT infrastructure,
of business processes, and of knowledge in the organization.
The underlying premise is that simply determining future needs and
requirements is not the right approach, due to the inherent unpredictability
of a complex environment and the fact that there are already many
working (social and information) systems in place which can not and should
not be ignored.
        </p>
        <p>The simulation architecture and tools are out of scope of this paper.
Pilot studies Results from the research tracks discussed will be tested
in the context of two actual business cases. One at the Dutch Immigration
and Naturalisation Service (IND) and one at the Dutch Tax and Customs
Administration (DTCA).</p>
        <p>In both organizations, timely and efficient adaptation to changing
legislation, case law, and patterns of behaviour accommodating or evading
law in the relevant environment is seen as an important organizational
objective, whose realization is causing problems.
3</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>Legal Concepts in Agile</title>
        <p>Of specific relevance to a world dominated by written declarations and
decisions, databases, web services, and changing sources of law is an
account of formal acts, and of the act of providing evidence for a legally
relevant proposition. In this account the concepts developed in the
MetaLex standardization effort, presented next, play an important role.
Formal legal acts are characterized by 1) the requirement that one
intends to bring about a certain institutional change, and 2) that this intent
is communicated in writing, i.e. the institutional change is represented.
Both the act of legislating and the various paper or software-based acts
of adminstrative organizations have this nature.</p>
        <p>
          The relation between sources of law and the business processes and
services of the administrative organization will be explained in terms of
the institutionalization and formalization of normative order (cf. [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10 ref2">10, 2</xref>
          ]).
The notion of services – which usually has no direct counterpart in the
relevant sources of law – will be explained in terms of Hohfeld’s directed
jural relationships (cf. [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
          ]). Both the constitutive rule (cf. generally [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
          ])
and Hohfeld’s categories (cf. for instance [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ]) are mainstays in legal
knowledge representation and legal philosophical logic.
        </p>
        <p>
          MetaLex To implement traceability from knowledge representation to
sources of law, the AGILE project will build on the results of our work
on MetaLex XML (cf. for instance [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2 ref5 ref6">6, 5, 2</xref>
          ]).
        </p>
        <p>
          MetaLex serves as a common document format, processing model, and
metadata set for software development. In addition, the MetaLex CEN
committee defines a single jurisdiction-neutral and transparent uniform
resource identifier (URI) based open, persistent, globally unique,
memorizable, meaningful, even to some extent “guessable” naming convention
for legislative resources, that can be used productively in OWL modeling.
MetaLex and the MetaLex naming convention strictly distinguish the
source of law as a published work from its set of expressions over time,
and the expression from its various manifestations, and the various
locatable items that exemplify these manifestations, as recommended by
the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR; cf. [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ]).
MetaLex extends the FRBR with a detailed but jurisdiction-independent
model of the lifecycle of sources of law, that models the source of law
as a succession of consolidated versions in force, and optionally ex tunc
consolidations to capture the possibility of correction (errata corrige) or
annulment after the fact of modifications by a constitutional court.
In the MetaLex metadata set, represented in an OWL ontology, the
realizes property between expressions and works represents the
connection between the two ontological levels at which documents exist that
are of relevance to their real world use. The source of law on the
expression level for instance cites other rules on the work level, while the legal
rules we represent are necessarily identified by their representation in
expressions. A citation (text fragment) w applies to (concept) C should for
instance be read as each legal rule that is represented by an
expressionlevel text fragment that realizes work fragment w applies to C. This
representation technique, an implementation of the idea of ontological
stratification (cf. [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14 ref2 ref7">7, 14, 2</xref>
          ]), will play an important role in the AGILE
project.
        </p>
        <p>In current organizational practice the management of changing sources
of law (particularly at the levels below formal law) is a notable weak
point, and ex tunc change is often never heard of.</p>
        <p>Institutions and Rules The primary purpose of legal knowledge
representation for the administrative organization is to keep track of how
it implements law in its organizational structure, business processes, data
structures, business rules, and resource allocation practices. On the other
hand the administrative organization has a number of good reasons to
keep specifications relating to these ontologically distinct from their legal
abstractions.</p>
        <p>Firstly, there is often a mismatch between the conceptualization of the
acts performed as found in the sources of law and the more practical
conceptualization within the organization, even if there is a
considerable overlap in terms. Law is not the only source of design requirements
and constraints, and the implementation of well-defined decision making
procedures and software support requires additional commitments.
Secondly, the concurrent use of different regimes within an organization,
or of alternative procedures for performing the same legal act (for real or
for simulation), make such an identification tricky. While the
organization may for instance use the vocabulary of the law to structure it’s data
structures, it will inevitably be confronted with changes in that
vocabulary, and the question which data can be regrounded in the new legal
vocabulary.</p>
        <p>Thirdly, straightforward legal rules are often in practice implemented as
formal acts, creating a confusion between proposition and formal
representations of such a proposition. For immigration, the proposition that
someone is married may for instance be legally relevant; In the
implementation of this criterion this however for instance becomes the proposition
that someone has supplied a marriage certificate.</p>
        <p>Since marriages may end, such a proposition is obviously not an essential
quality of a person: the correct way to represent such a proposition is as a
participation in a (time-limited) marriage. Moreover, if the organization
for instance adds another condition that the marriage certificate must be
less than one year old, and a procedure may take more than one year, a
service requester may in fact be required to supply a marriage certificate
multiple times. A certificate may in fact be still valid at the moment
of decision making, while the marriage is not at the point in time in
existence.</p>
        <p>The administrative organization is conceived of as an implementation of
a legal institution. Institutions can be conceptualized as abstract social
systems with a well-defined interface with an environment. The
structures of the legal institution are defined by the institutional facts that
make up the institution, and its mechanisms of change are the
constitutive rules – found in the relevant sources of law – that specify what brute
act constitutes, or counts as, an institutional act. The administrative
organization must at least implement each of the relevant institutional acts
it is supposed to perform in brute reality in a business process and
advertise it as a service to the relevant agents. Conversely, it recognizes a
limited number of ways in which agents in the environment can perform
the acts that count as a request for the performance of a service.
Relevant patterns in logical propositions describing the functions of
legal rules revolve around the notions of constitutiveness and applicability.
The legal rules represented by the source of law appeal to two separate
realities – institutional reality and brute reality – and perform a
mapping from brute reality – the ontological substratum – into institutional
reality – the ontological superstratum. The substratum has an existence
independent of the rules, while the superstratum is supervenient on the
substratum and exists by virtue of social recognition of the rules of the
institution.</p>
        <p>Applicability plays a central role as soon as the logical proposition and
the legal rule are separated. The law frequently does so: A special class of
legal rules, applicability rules, constrains the applicability of other rules,
or make the application of one legal rule conditional on the application
of another legal rule.</p>
        <p>The institutional interpretation however tells us little about the functions
of law for its users. To explain these functions, we have to appeal to
planning and plan recognition. In the AGILE project this aspect is filled
in with agent simulation.</p>
        <p>
          In some cases such an explanation is straightforward. The analysis of
normative rules in terms of normative positions and obligation, i.e. deontic
logic, is such a straightforward abstract theory of behaviour, based on the
expectation that people generally avoid the circumstances in which they
are liable to be punished. To explain the normalizing effect of other rules
one must ascribe intentions and preferences to agents: People generally
intentionally try to bring about or avoid certain legal facts.
The principal aim of Hohfeld’s work (in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
          ]) was to clarify jural
relationships between parties. Hohfeld’s relationships distinguish between the
(legal) competence (or power, ability) and incompetence to play a
certain agent role, and therefore to cause a certain change of position, and
between the obligation to cause a certain change of position or the
absence of such an obligation, and most importantly, between the one who
acts and the one who predicts the actions of another. In essence we are
dealing with the ability of one agent to infer:
1. that another agent has the ability or inability to change his (in this
case legal) position in relevant ways, and
2. that the other agent has a preference for changing or not changing
it.
        </p>
        <p>Business process specifications represent an intention to use one’s
(legal) abilities in a predictable manner. Services publicly advertise this
intention, so that it creates an ability (to change their legal position) of
prospective clients. These clients use this ability by requesting a service.
Of central importance is the adoption of agent roles: the client becomes
a client by requesting a service and – thereby – adopting a well-defined
role, while the employee of the administrative organization adopts an
agent role in an associated business process. Agent simulation as a tool
for impact analysis and exploration of design options assumes the
development of prototypical agents representing both the organization itself
and its relevant environment.
4</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-3">
        <title>Discussion</title>
        <p>
          The discussed elements are all found in legal knowledge representation.
A deviation from mainstream legal knowledge representation is found
in the rigorous ontological stratification (cf. [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14 ref7">7, 14</xref>
          ]) of legal entities and
organizational entities we consider for AGILE. Although legal knowledge
representation literature discusses the “counts-as” or constitutive rules
(cf. for instance [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref11">1, 11</xref>
          ]), it usually considers them just one type of rule,
among other (notably normative) ones, instead of applying the concept
throughout.
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Acknowledgements</title>
      <p>AGILE is a Jacquard project funded by the Netherlands Organisation for
Scientific Research (NWO). In the AGILE project, The Leibniz Center
for Law of the University of Amsterdam cooperates with the Technical
University of Delft, which has experience in the application of CAS
theory to organizations. The IND and two companies, O&amp;I and BeInformed,
provide matching effort to the project.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Boella</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>L. W. N. van der Torre. Regulative</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>and constitutive norms in normative multiagent systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning</source>
          , Whistler (CA),
          <year>2004</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Boer</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Legal Theory, Sources of Law, &amp; the Semantic Web. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 195</source>
          . IOS Press,
          <year>2009</year>
          . To appear.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Boer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>T. van Engers</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Peters</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Winkels</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Separating law from geography in gis-based egovernment services</article-title>
          .
          <source>Artificial Intelligence &amp; Law</source>
          ,
          <volume>15</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>49</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>76</lpage>
          ,
          <year>February 2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Boer</surname>
          </string-name>
          , T. van Engers,
          <article-title>and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Winkels</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Using Ontologies for Comparing and Harmonizing Legislation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL)</source>
          ,
          <source>Edinburgh (UK)</source>
          ,
          <year>2003</year>
          . ACM Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Boer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Vitali</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and E. de Maat. CEN Workshop Agreement on MetaLex XML,
          <article-title>an open XML Interchange Format for Legal and Legislative Resources (CWA 15710)</article-title>
          .
          <source>Technical report, European Committee for Standardization (CEN)</source>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Boer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Winkels</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Vitali</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Metalex XML and the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format</article-title>
          . In G. Sartor,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Casanovas</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Casellas</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and R. Rubino, editors,
          <source>Computational Models of the Law, volume LNCS 4884 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence</source>
          . Springer,
          <year>2008</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Borgo</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Guarino</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Masolo</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Stratified ontologies: The case of physical objects</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the ECAI-96 Workshop on Ontological Engineering</source>
          ,
          <year>1996</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
            <surname>Hohfeld</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Legal Reasoning</article-title>
          . Yale University Press,
          <year>1919</year>
          . Edited by W.W. Cook, fourth printing,
          <year>1966</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Janssen</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Adaptability and accountability of information architectures in interorganizational networks</article-title>
          .
          <source>In ICEGOV '07: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governance</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>57</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>64</lpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2007</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10. N. MacCormick. Norms, institutions, and institutional facts.
          <source>Law and Philosophy</source>
          ,
          <volume>17</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>301</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>345</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1998</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Mazzarese</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Towards the semantics of “constitutive” in judicial reasoning</article-title>
          .
          <source>Ratio Iuris</source>
          ,
          <volume>12</volume>
          :
          <fpage>252</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>262</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12. G. Sartor.
          <article-title>Fundamental legal concepts: A formal and teleological characterisation</article-title>
          .
          <source>Technical report</source>
          , European University Institute, Florence / Cirsfid, University of Bologna,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K. G.</given-names>
            <surname>Saur.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Functional requirements for bibliographic records</article-title>
          .
          <source>UBCIM Publications - IFLA Section on Cataloguing</source>
          ,
          <volume>19</volume>
          ,
          <year>1998</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Smith</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>An essay in formal ontology</article-title>
          .
          <source>Grazer Philosophische Studien</source>
          ,
          <volume>6</volume>
          :
          <fpage>39</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>62</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1978</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          15. T. van Engers,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Winkels</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Boer</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and E. de Maat.
          <article-title>Knowledge management and the dutch legal aid service counter</article-title>
          . In J. J. Schreinemakers and T. van Engers, editors,
          <source>Advances in Knowledge Management</source>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>volume</surname>
            <given-names>IV</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Wu¨rzburg,
          <year>2006</year>
          . Ergon Verlag.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>