{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023600809170600135, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026972353337828725, 'mean_word_length': 5.132231404958677, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Legal Validation of a Formal Representation of Articles of the GDPR

It is possible to model the meaning of articles of the GDPR in logic formulæ and this enables a semi-automatic reasoning over the Regulation, e.g., to build an argument of compliance. However, any formal reasoning requires that the formulæ are validly expressing the legal meaning(s) of the articles, including potential disagreements between legal experts over their interpretation. The problem is that IT experts may anticipate some unofficial legal meaning, invalid under any interpretation, while verifying if this happens requires legal expertise. However, legal experts are unlikely familiar with the logic formalism and cannot give informed feedback without understanding the legal interpretation(s) that a formula embodies. On a previous work, we devised a methodology and a human-readable intermediate representation to help non-experts reading formulæ in Reified I/O logic (RIO), a formalism expressing GDPR provisions introduced to reason about data protection compliance. This paper validates the methodology and shows that is possible to retrieve feedback from legal experts about the validity the RIO representation of the Regulation. Precisely, we collect and evaluate the feedback on the RIO version of Art. 5.1a and Art. 7.1, and show how to elicit suggestions to improve the formalization thereof. What emerges is an agile process to support public trust in the formal framework and in its use.