Content uploaded by Jesper M. Paasch
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jesper M. Paasch on Dec 14, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Standardization of
Real Property Rights and
Public Regulations
The Legal Cadastral Domain Model
KTH Architecture and
the Built Environment
Standardization of Real Property Rights and
Public Regulations
The Legal Cadastral Domain Model
Jesper Mayntz Paasch
Doctoral Thesis in Real Estate Planning
Real Estate Planning and Land Law
Department of Real Estate and Construction Management
School of Architecture and the Built Environment
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
Stockholm, Sweden 2012
KTH Architecture and
the Built Environment
Standardization of Real Property Rights and
Public Regulations
The Legal Cadastral Domain Model
Jesper Mayntz Paasch
Doctoral Thesis in Real Estate Planning
Real Estate Planning and Land Law
Department of Real Estate and Construction Management
School of Architecture and the Built Environment
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
Stockholm, Sweden 2012
ii
Academic dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Technology
Author: Jesper Mayntz Paasch
Title: Standardization of Real Property Rights and Public Regulations - The
Legal Cadastral Domain Model
TITA-FOB-PHD 2012:4
ISBN 978-91-85783-25-0
© Jesper M. Paasch
Real Estate Planning and Land Law
Department of Real Estate and Construction Management
School of Architecture and the Built Environment
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
SE-100 44 Stockholm
Sweden
ii
Academic dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Technology
Author: Jesper Mayntz Paasch
Title: Standardization of Real Property Rights and Public Regulations - The
Legal Cadastral Domain Model
TITA-FOB-PHD 2012:4
ISBN 978-91-85783-25-0
© Jesper M. Paasch
Real Estate Planning and Land Law
Department of Real Estate and Construction Management
School of Architecture and the Built Environment
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
SE-100 44 Stockholm
Sweden
iii
Abstract
The objective of this thesis is to develop a conceptual model for classifica-
tion of real property rights and public regulations. The model is called the
Legal Cadastral Domain Model.
The model is intended to be a terminological framework for cross-border
exchange of cadastral information. Parties exchanging cadastral information
via the model do not require detailed knowledge of the legal system in which
the right or regulation is created.
The model is based on the principle that real property rights and public regu-
lations influence real property ownership by being either beneficial or en-
cumbering for the real property owner.
The theoretical departure of the research presented in this thesis is in com-
parative legal theory and terminology. Real property rights and public regula-
tions are important parts of real property legislation as they describe and
secure the use and other exploitation of land, water and air.
The research is conducted through studies in real property legislation and
associated literature. The model has been developed through case studies on
real property rights in Portugal, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Swe-
den and public regulations in Portugal and Sweden.
The generated results show that it seems possible to describe real property
rights and public regulations regardless of their legal origin, at least in Wes-
tern legal systems.
The thesis also includes a discussion of terminological aspects concerning
definitions of three-dimensional (3D) real property.
The thesis consists of a summary and 6 papers.
Keywords: Cadastral domain, standardization, real property, real property
rights, public regulations, real property ownership, land administration, mo-
delling, terminology, comparative law.
iii
Abstract
The objective of this thesis is to develop a conceptual model for classifica-
tion of real property rights and public regulations. The model is called the
Legal Cadastral Domain Model.
The model is intended to be a terminological framework for cross-border
exchange of cadastral information. Parties exchanging cadastral information
via the model do not require detailed knowledge of the legal system in which
the right or regulation is created.
The model is based on the principle that real property rights and public regu-
lations influence real property ownership by being either beneficial or en-
cumbering for the real property owner.
The theoretical departure of the research presented in this thesis is in com-
parative legal theory and terminology. Real property rights and public regula-
tions are important parts of real property legislation as they describe and
secure the use and other exploitation of land, water and air.
The research is conducted through studies in real property legislation and
associated literature. The model has been developed through case studies on
real property rights in Portugal, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Swe-
den and public regulations in Portugal and Sweden.
The generated results show that it seems possible to describe real property
rights and public regulations regardless of their legal origin, at least in Wes-
tern legal systems.
The thesis also includes a discussion of terminological aspects concerning
definitions of three-dimensional (3D) real property.
The thesis consists of a summary and 6 papers.
Keywords: Cadastral domain, standardization, real property, real property
rights, public regulations, real property ownership, land administration, mo-
delling, terminology, comparative law.
iv
iv
v
Acknowledgements
This thesis could not have been written without the generous support of
many, especially my employer Lantmäteriet, the Swedish mapping, cadastral
and land registration authority.
Many individuals and organisations have contributed in making this thesis
possible. It is however not possible to thank all of them individually as much
as they deserve, but I want to express my special gratitude to the following.
I would like to thank my colleagues at Lantmäteriet, Gävle and the Division
of Real Estate Planning and Land Law at KTH, Royal Institute of Techno-
logy [Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan], Stockholm for their interest, help and
support. I would like to especially thank my supervisors Dr. Peter Ekbäck
(KTH), professor Dr. Hans Mattsson (KTH) and professor Dr. Erik Stubkjær
(Aalborg University, Denmark) for discussions, input and guidance through
the whole period of research. I would also like to especially thank Mr. Hans-
Erik Wiberg, former Head of Division at Lantmäteriet, for allowing me to
conduct my research as part of my employment.
I am also indebted to the following for either co-authoring two of the articles
presented in this thesis and/or answering questions in regard to my case stu-
dies or otherwise being helpful: Mr. Fergus Hayden at the Irish Land Regis-
try in Dublin, prof. adjunto João P. Hespanha at Technology and Manage-
ment Polytechnic School in Águeda, Portugal, prof., Dr. Manfred Holler at
University of Hamburg, Germany, Dr. Mónica Jardim at University at Coim-
bra, Portugal, Dr. Barbro Julstad at Lantmäteriet, Dr. Jenny Paulsson at KTH,
prof. Dr. Hendrik Ploeger at Delft University of Technology, the Nether-
lands, Dr. Markus Seifert at Land of Bavaria Agency for Surveying and
Geographic Information in Munich, Germany and prof. Dr. Jaap Zevenber-
gen at University of Twente, the Netherlands.
I would also like to thank Mr. Per-Anders Karlgren at Lantmäteriet for al-
ways very lively and fruitful discussions.
Last, but certainly not least, I want to express my sincere thanks and grati-
tude to my wife Anna for her endless patience, never ending encouragement
and always constructive comments.
Gävle, May 2012
Jesper Mayntz Paasch
v
Acknowledgements
This thesis could not have been written without the generous support of
many, especially my employer Lantmäteriet, the Swedish mapping, cadastral
and land registration authority.
Many individuals and organisations have contributed in making this thesis
possible. It is however not possible to thank all of them individually as much
as they deserve, but I want to express my special gratitude to the following.
I would like to thank my colleagues at Lantmäteriet, Gävle and the Division
of Real Estate Planning and Land Law at KTH, Royal Institute of Techno-
logy [Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan], Stockholm for their interest, help and
support. I would like to especially thank my supervisors Dr. Peter Ekbäck
(KTH), professor Dr. Hans Mattsson (KTH) and professor Dr. Erik Stubkjær
(Aalborg University, Denmark) for discussions, input and guidance through
the whole period of research. I would also like to especially thank Mr. Hans-
Erik Wiberg, former Head of Division at Lantmäteriet, for allowing me to
conduct my research as part of my employment.
I am also indebted to the following for either co-authoring two of the articles
presented in this thesis and/or answering questions in regard to my case stu-
dies or otherwise being helpful: Mr. Fergus Hayden at the Irish Land Regis-
try in Dublin, prof. adjunto João P. Hespanha at Technology and Manage-
ment Polytechnic School in Águeda, Portugal, prof., Dr. Manfred Holler at
University of Hamburg, Germany, Dr. Mónica Jardim at University at Coim-
bra, Portugal, Dr. Barbro Julstad at Lantmäteriet, Dr. Jenny Paulsson at KTH,
prof. Dr. Hendrik Ploeger at Delft University of Technology, the Nether-
lands, Dr. Markus Seifert at Land of Bavaria Agency for Surveying and
Geographic Information in Munich, Germany and prof. Dr. Jaap Zevenber-
gen at University of Twente, the Netherlands.
I would also like to thank Mr. Per-Anders Karlgren at Lantmäteriet for al-
ways very lively and fruitful discussions.
Last, but certainly not least, I want to express my sincere thanks and grati-
tude to my wife Anna for her endless patience, never ending encouragement
and always constructive comments.
Gävle, May 2012
Jesper Mayntz Paasch
vi
vi
vii
Content of thesis
Introduction
Summary of thesis
Paper 1
Paasch, J. M. (2005). Legal Cadastral Domain Model - An object-orientated
approach. In Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research, volume
2, number 1, 2005 (pp. 117-136).
Paper 2
Paasch, J. M. (2008). Standardization within the Legal Domain: A Termino-
logical Approach. In Doganoglu,T., Holler, M. J. and Tiedeman, J. (eds.).
EURAS Yearbook of Standardization, volume 6, 2008 (pp. 105-130). On-line
publication.
Paper 3
Hespanha, J., Jardim, M., Paasch, J. and Zevenbergen, J. (2009). Modelling
Legal and Administrative Cadastral Domain: Implementing into the Portu-
guese Legal Framework. In Journal of Comparative Law, volume 4, number
1, 2009 (pp. 140-169).
Paper 4
Paasch, J. M. (2011). Classification of Real Property Rights - A Comparative
Study of Real Property Rights in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and
Sweden. KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Stockholm, Sweden. TRITA-
FOB Report 2011:1.
Paper 5
Paasch, J. M. and Paulsson, J. (2011). Terminological Aspects Concerning
Three-dimensional Real Property. In Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real
Estate Research, volume 8, number 1, 2011 (pp. 81-97).
Paper 6
Paasch, J. M. (2012). Modelling Public Regulations – A Theoretical Ap-
proach. Submitted for peer-review to Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real
Estate Research in May 2012.
vii
Content of thesis
Introduction
Summary of thesis
Paper 1
Paasch, J. M. (2005). Legal Cadastral Domain Model - An object-orientated
approach. In Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research, volume
2, number 1, 2005 (pp. 117-136).
Paper 2
Paasch, J. M. (2008). Standardization within the Legal Domain: A Termino-
logical Approach. In Doganoglu,T., Holler, M. J. and Tiedeman, J. (eds.).
EURAS Yearbook of Standardization, volume 6, 2008 (pp. 105-130). On-line
publication.
Paper 3
Hespanha, J., Jardim, M., Paasch, J. and Zevenbergen, J. (2009). Modelling
Legal and Administrative Cadastral Domain: Implementing into the Portu-
guese Legal Framework. In Journal of Comparative Law, volume 4, number
1, 2009 (pp. 140-169).
Paper 4
Paasch, J. M. (2011). Classification of Real Property Rights - A Comparative
Study of Real Property Rights in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and
Sweden. KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Stockholm, Sweden. TRITA-
FOB Report 2011:1.
Paper 5
Paasch, J. M. and Paulsson, J. (2011). Terminological Aspects Concerning
Three-dimensional Real Property. In Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real
Estate Research, volume 8, number 1, 2011 (pp. 81-97).
Paper 6
Paasch, J. M. (2012). Modelling Public Regulations – A Theoretical Ap-
proach. Submitted for peer-review to Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real
Estate Research in May 2012.
viii
Introduction
The results presented in this thesis are a contribution to the ongoing research
of the cadastral domain.1 The aim of the thesis is to develop a conceptual
model describing a standardized, terminological framework for classification
of real property rights and public regulations influencing the owner’s use of
real property, the Legal Cadastral Domain Model.
The concept of standardization traditionally belonged to the techni-
cal/industrial manufacturing industry, securing the usability of technical
products, specifications and measurements.2 The concept has however over
the years developed into other fields like organisation and information ma-
nagement.3 The aim of a standard is to create a framework for handling and
exchange of goods, information and services through a common interface.
The theoretical departure of the research presented in this thesis is in com-
parative legal theory and terminology. Real property rights and public regula-
tions are important parts of real property legislation as they describe and
secure the use and other exploitation of land, water and air. A standardized
classification would further cross-border exchange of information regarding
these legal instruments, thus making international comparison easier.
Any comparison requires (some degree of) standardized terminology; other-
wise the receiver is not capable of understanding the message. It is, apart
from language barriers and the use of sometimes different terminology, diffi-
cult to exchange information on the content of national cadastres, since na-
tional cadastral domains are part of national legislation and may be deeply
rooted in a country’s historical and cultural traditions.
1 The term cadastral domain covers a wide range of land management issues like the
registration of real property rights, fiscal rights and other issues influencing the use,
management and exploitation of land, water and air.
2 The concept of standardization is old. Examples of e.g. standardized weights and
goods are known from antiquity. Biblical and ancient Indian texts state the value of
correct measurements. It is e.g. mentioned in an Indian text from about 400 BC that
‘[…] the king should inspect the weights and measures and have them stamped every
six month and punish offenders and cheats’. Cited in Spivak and Brenner (2001, pp.
8-9).
3 In total, more than 19.000 international standards exist according to ISO, the Inter-
national Organization for Standardization. Examples are the international standards
for quality management – ISO 9000, and environmental management – ISO 14000.
See www.iso.org.
viii
Introduction
The results presented in this thesis are a contribution to the ongoing research
of the cadastral domain.1 The aim of the thesis is to develop a conceptual
model describing a standardized, terminological framework for classification
of real property rights and public regulations influencing the owner’s use of
real property, the Legal Cadastral Domain Model.
The concept of standardization traditionally belonged to the techni-
cal/industrial manufacturing industry, securing the usability of technical
products, specifications and measurements.2 The concept has however over
the years developed into other fields like organisation and information ma-
nagement.3 The aim of a standard is to create a framework for handling and
exchange of goods, information and services through a common interface.
The theoretical departure of the research presented in this thesis is in com-
parative legal theory and terminology. Real property rights and public regula-
tions are important parts of real property legislation as they describe and
secure the use and other exploitation of land, water and air. A standardized
classification would further cross-border exchange of information regarding
these legal instruments, thus making international comparison easier.
Any comparison requires (some degree of) standardized terminology; other-
wise the receiver is not capable of understanding the message. It is, apart
from language barriers and the use of sometimes different terminology, diffi-
cult to exchange information on the content of national cadastres, since na-
tional cadastral domains are part of national legislation and may be deeply
rooted in a country’s historical and cultural traditions.
1 The term cadastral domain covers a wide range of land management issues like the
registration of real property rights, fiscal rights and other issues influencing the use,
management and exploitation of land, water and air.
2 The concept of standardization is old. Examples of e.g. standardized weights and
goods are known from antiquity. Biblical and ancient Indian texts state the value of
correct measurements. It is e.g. mentioned in an Indian text from about 400 BC that
‘[…] the king should inspect the weights and measures and have them stamped every
six month and punish offenders and cheats’. Cited in Spivak and Brenner (2001, pp.
8-9).
3 In total, more than 19.000 international standards exist according to ISO, the Inter-
national Organization for Standardization. Examples are the international standards
for quality management – ISO 9000, and environmental management – ISO 14000.
See www.iso.org.
ix
Parties exchanging cadastral information via the Legal Cadastral Domain
Model do not require detailed knowledge of the legal system in which the
right or regulation is created. They can receive information about what type
of right or regulation which influences real property ownership, which in this
thesis is seen as the central right to real property.
Other aspects of cadastral research such as registration, visualization, taxa-
tion, etc. are equally important for the development of the cadastral domain,
but without a legal basis there would be no rights or regulations to exchange
information about.
I hope my research will contribute to an increased awareness of the impor-
tance of legislation and terminology in cadastral research.
ix
Parties exchanging cadastral information via the Legal Cadastral Domain
Model do not require detailed knowledge of the legal system in which the
right or regulation is created. They can receive information about what type
of right or regulation which influences real property ownership, which in this
thesis is seen as the central right to real property.
Other aspects of cadastral research such as registration, visualization, taxa-
tion, etc. are equally important for the development of the cadastral domain,
but without a legal basis there would be no rights or regulations to exchange
information about.
I hope my research will contribute to an increased awareness of the impor-
tance of legislation and terminology in cadastral research.
10
Summary of thesis
Jesper M. Paasch
10
Summary of thesis
Jesper M. Paasch
11
Table of content of summary
1 The empirical setting............................................................................................12
2 Research structure ...............................................................................................13
3 Research methodology......................................................................................... 16
Paper 1 ................................................................................................................. 16
Paper 2 ................................................................................................................. 16
Paper 3 ................................................................................................................. 16
Paper 4 ................................................................................................................. 17
Paper 5 ................................................................................................................. 18
Paper 6 ................................................................................................................. 19
4 Presentation of papers..........................................................................................21
Paper 1 ................................................................................................................. 21
Paper 2 ................................................................................................................. 22
Paper 3 ................................................................................................................. 22
Paper 4 ................................................................................................................. 23
Paper 5 ................................................................................................................. 23
Paper 6 ................................................................................................................. 24
5 Conclusions...........................................................................................................24
6 Discussion.............................................................................................................. 27
7 Future research ....................................................................................................28
8 Svensk sammanfattning (Swedish summary).................................................... 29
9 References............................................................................................................. 30
Appendix 1...............................................................................................................34
11
Table of content of summary
1 The empirical setting............................................................................................12
2 Research structure ...............................................................................................13
3 Research methodology......................................................................................... 16
Paper 1 ................................................................................................................. 16
Paper 2 ................................................................................................................. 16
Paper 3 ................................................................................................................. 16
Paper 4 ................................................................................................................. 17
Paper 5 ................................................................................................................. 18
Paper 6 ................................................................................................................. 19
4 Presentation of papers..........................................................................................21
Paper 1 ................................................................................................................. 21
Paper 2 ................................................................................................................. 22
Paper 3 ................................................................................................................. 22
Paper 4 ................................................................................................................. 23
Paper 5 ................................................................................................................. 23
Paper 6 ................................................................................................................. 24
5 Conclusions...........................................................................................................24
6 Discussion.............................................................................................................. 27
7 Future research ....................................................................................................28
8 Svensk sammanfattning (Swedish summary).................................................... 29
9 References............................................................................................................. 30
Appendix 1...............................................................................................................34
12
1 The empirical setting
The cadastral community has during the last decades of the 20th century been
producing digital cadastral data, replacing analogue records to further
smoother and more cost effective land administration.4
The next phase is the exchange of digital cadastral information among na-
tional and international users. In the first decade of the 21st century a number
of scientific publications, conferences, projects and other initiatives have
shown an increased awareness towards the registration and exchange of ca-
dastral data.
Examples are the annual FIG5 conferences, the Cadastral Data Modelling
workshop in 2003, the Standardization of the Cadastral Domain conference
in 2004, and the 1st and 2nd international workshops on three-dimensional
(3D) real property in 2001 and 2011.6 Other initiatives are e.g. the European
EULIS co-operation, the European COST research co-operation, the UNECE
guidelines on real property identifiers, the European INSPIRE directive, the
Core Cadastral Domain Model and the Land Administration Domain Model:
The EULIS (European Land Information Service) co-operation provide a
facility for accessing online and updated information on land across Euro-
pean borders, focusing on mortgaging and conveying of real property. The
aim is to improve opportunities for pan-European activities and to compare
national practices.7
The European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research
(COST) has researched different aspects of real property transactions. One of
the experiences is that terminology plays an important role and scientific
investigation within a field where terminology is confused or not comparable
is extremely difficult. 8
4 An early example is the Swedish Real Property Register. A report stated almost 50
years ago that the aim of digitalisation was to “be fitting the separate registers into a
uniform flexible net of information systems” (SOU, 1966, p. 310).
5 International Federation of Surveyors.
6 See www.fig.net, ITC-ESRI (2003), van Oosterom et al. (2004), van Oosterom et
al. (2001) and van Oosterom et al. (2011) respectively.
7 Ploeger and van Loenen (2004; 2005), Laarakker and Gustafsson (2004). See
www.eulis.eu.
8 Zevenbergen, Frank and Stubkjær (2007, pp. 18-20).
12
1 The empirical setting
The cadastral community has during the last decades of the 20th century been
producing digital cadastral data, replacing analogue records to further
smoother and more cost effective land administration.4
The next phase is the exchange of digital cadastral information among na-
tional and international users. In the first decade of the 21st century a number
of scientific publications, conferences, projects and other initiatives have
shown an increased awareness towards the registration and exchange of ca-
dastral data.
Examples are the annual FIG5 conferences, the Cadastral Data Modelling
workshop in 2003, the Standardization of the Cadastral Domain conference
in 2004, and the 1st and 2nd international workshops on three-dimensional
(3D) real property in 2001 and 2011.6 Other initiatives are e.g. the European
EULIS co-operation, the European COST research co-operation, the UNECE
guidelines on real property identifiers, the European INSPIRE directive, the
Core Cadastral Domain Model and the Land Administration Domain Model:
The EULIS (European Land Information Service) co-operation provide a
facility for accessing online and updated information on land across Euro-
pean borders, focusing on mortgaging and conveying of real property. The
aim is to improve opportunities for pan-European activities and to compare
national practices.7
The European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research
(COST) has researched different aspects of real property transactions. One of
the experiences is that terminology plays an important role and scientific
investigation within a field where terminology is confused or not comparable
is extremely difficult. 8
4 An early example is the Swedish Real Property Register. A report stated almost 50
years ago that the aim of digitalisation was to “be fitting the separate registers into a
uniform flexible net of information systems” (SOU, 1966, p. 310).
5 International Federation of Surveyors.
6 See www.fig.net, ITC-ESRI (2003), van Oosterom et al. (2004), van Oosterom et
al. (2001) and van Oosterom et al. (2011) respectively.
7 Ploeger and van Loenen (2004; 2005), Laarakker and Gustafsson (2004). See
www.eulis.eu.
8 Zevenbergen, Frank and Stubkjær (2007, pp. 18-20).
13
Another initiative to describe and compare cadastral information is the guide-
lines for real property identifiers produced by the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe, UNECE.9 The guidelines aim at supporting effec-
tive national land administration.
The directive on Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European
Community (INSPIRE) is demanding the creation of data specifications for
exchanging digital information on a large number of spatial data themes in
Europe.10 One of the themes is cadastral parcels.11 The directive does, how-
ever, only require geometrical, not legal, cadastral information to be ex-
changed, but I think the directive indicates a growing international awareness
towards the exchange of cadastral information (on a European level).
The Core Cadastral Domain Model is an initiative to further international
understanding and exchange of cadastral information.12 The model aims at
creating a standardized terminological framework for creating cross-border
information services, where semantics have to be shared between countries in
order to enable translations of real property terms. The model has been sub-
mitted to ISO (International Organization for Standardization) for being fur-
ther developed into an international standard for land administration, the
Land Administration Domain Model, LADM.13 The LADM is scheduled to
become an international standard in July 2012.
A common nominator for the initiatives listed here is that they in my opinion
indicate the need for standardized terminology as basis for any effective ex-
change of cadastral information. The research presented in this thesis is a
contribution to the development of such a standardized terminological
framework.
2 Research structure
The research was conducted by publishing journal articles and a report,
which are summarised and discussed in this summary as paper 1-6. Paper 1,
2, 3 and 5 are articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Paper 4 is a report
published at KTH. Paper 6 is an article submitted for review to a peer-
reviewed journal. An overview of the research structure is shown in figure 1.
9 UNECE (2004).
10 INSPIRE (2007).
11 INSPIRE (2010a).
12 van Oosterom et al. (2006).
13 ISO (2011).
13
Another initiative to describe and compare cadastral information is the guide-
lines for real property identifiers produced by the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe, UNECE.9 The guidelines aim at supporting effec-
tive national land administration.
The directive on Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European
Community (INSPIRE) is demanding the creation of data specifications for
exchanging digital information on a large number of spatial data themes in
Europe.10 One of the themes is cadastral parcels.11 The directive does, how-
ever, only require geometrical, not legal, cadastral information to be ex-
changed, but I think the directive indicates a growing international awareness
towards the exchange of cadastral information (on a European level).
The Core Cadastral Domain Model is an initiative to further international
understanding and exchange of cadastral information.12 The model aims at
creating a standardized terminological framework for creating cross-border
information services, where semantics have to be shared between countries in
order to enable translations of real property terms. The model has been sub-
mitted to ISO (International Organization for Standardization) for being fur-
ther developed into an international standard for land administration, the
Land Administration Domain Model, LADM.13 The LADM is scheduled to
become an international standard in July 2012.
A common nominator for the initiatives listed here is that they in my opinion
indicate the need for standardized terminology as basis for any effective ex-
change of cadastral information. The research presented in this thesis is a
contribution to the development of such a standardized terminological
framework.
2 Research structure
The research was conducted by publishing journal articles and a report,
which are summarised and discussed in this summary as paper 1-6. Paper 1,
2, 3 and 5 are articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Paper 4 is a report
published at KTH. Paper 6 is an article submitted for review to a peer-
reviewed journal. An overview of the research structure is shown in figure 1.
9 UNECE (2004).
10 INSPIRE (2007).
11 INSPIRE (2010a).
12 van Oosterom et al. (2006).
13 ISO (2011).
14
Rights and regulations can be classified according to a number of characteris-
tics, e.g. their spatial expansion, the value or type of the land they cover, etc.
However, underneath all these geometrical, financial and other attributes real
property rights and public regulations are legal instruments, regulating the
use of real property. I have therefore chosen to base my research on legal
comparison and terminology. Bogdan14 states that any comparison must be
based on common issues in the legal systems subject for comparison. Legal
rules cannot be compared word by word. The contexts of the rules have to be
compared, since they constitute the basis for any legal activity. Bogdan also
argues that a comparison must be of a certain value and we must be cautious
not to make too simple comparisons. Regardless of any method of compari-
son, it is not enough to merely compare legal systems.
The first phase of the research is presented in paper 1, containing an investi-
gation of the state of the art of research in cadastral modelling in order to
isolate a problem to investigate. A research hypothesis was established sta-
ting that it is possible to categorize real property rights and public regulations
influencing real property ownership, regardless of their origin in different
legal systems.
Paper 2 added a theoretical dimension to the descriptions of the Legal Cadas-
tral Domain Model by giving an introduction to conceptual legal modelling
and developing the models terminology.
The model was thereafter in paper 3 and 4 tested in case studies on real pro-
perty rights and public regulations in national legislations. The analysis in
paper 4 revealed some inconsistencies in the real property right part of the
Legal Cadastral Domain Model, which is updated in the paper.
3D property was subject of a terminological study in paper 5. The analysis of
the concept(s) of 3D property does not fit directly into the development of
the Legal Cadastral Domain Model, but is an attempt to discuss terminology
of a specialised part of the cadastral domain on an international level.
The theory building for the public regulation part in the Legal Cadastral Do-
main Model in paper 1 and 2 is not as developed as the real property rights
part. This inconsistency has been noted in paper 6, where a theoretical ap-
proach to the development of the public regulation classes is presented. The
result is an extended version of that part of the model.
14 Bogdan (2004).
14
Rights and regulations can be classified according to a number of characteris-
tics, e.g. their spatial expansion, the value or type of the land they cover, etc.
However, underneath all these geometrical, financial and other attributes real
property rights and public regulations are legal instruments, regulating the
use of real property. I have therefore chosen to base my research on legal
comparison and terminology. Bogdan14 states that any comparison must be
based on common issues in the legal systems subject for comparison. Legal
rules cannot be compared word by word. The contexts of the rules have to be
compared, since they constitute the basis for any legal activity. Bogdan also
argues that a comparison must be of a certain value and we must be cautious
not to make too simple comparisons. Regardless of any method of compari-
son, it is not enough to merely compare legal systems.
The first phase of the research is presented in paper 1, containing an investi-
gation of the state of the art of research in cadastral modelling in order to
isolate a problem to investigate. A research hypothesis was established sta-
ting that it is possible to categorize real property rights and public regulations
influencing real property ownership, regardless of their origin in different
legal systems.
Paper 2 added a theoretical dimension to the descriptions of the Legal Cadas-
tral Domain Model by giving an introduction to conceptual legal modelling
and developing the models terminology.
The model was thereafter in paper 3 and 4 tested in case studies on real pro-
perty rights and public regulations in national legislations. The analysis in
paper 4 revealed some inconsistencies in the real property right part of the
Legal Cadastral Domain Model, which is updated in the paper.
3D property was subject of a terminological study in paper 5. The analysis of
the concept(s) of 3D property does not fit directly into the development of
the Legal Cadastral Domain Model, but is an attempt to discuss terminology
of a specialised part of the cadastral domain on an international level.
The theory building for the public regulation part in the Legal Cadastral Do-
main Model in paper 1 and 2 is not as developed as the real property rights
part. This inconsistency has been noted in paper 6, where a theoretical ap-
proach to the development of the public regulation classes is presented. The
result is an extended version of that part of the model.
14 Bogdan (2004).
15
Figure 1. Research structure.
15
Figure 1. Research structure.
16
3 Research methodology
The research methodologies are described for each paper below. An over-
view of the design, data collection and validation methods for each paper is
shown in table 1.
Paper 1
Paasch, J. M. (2005). Legal Cadastral Domain Model - An object-
orientated approach
The research was conducted using qualitative research methods; literature
studies, studies in Swedish real property legislation and supplemented with
my own experience in the field of cadastral modelling, gained from partici-
pating in projects modelling Swedish real property rights and public regula-
tions at Lantmäteriet.15 Swedish real property rights and public regulations
are used to exemplify this first, preliminary version of the Legal Cadastral
Domain Model.
Paper 2
Paasch, J. M. (2008). Standardization within the Legal Domain: A Ter-
minological Approach
The research was conducted using a qualitative research method; literature
survey in the fields of comparative law, legal history and terminology func-
tioned as theoretical departure for the paper. International standards on ter-
minology were used as basis for the development of the terminology of the
Legal Cadastral Domain Model. The result is an expanded research hypothe-
sis containing the characteristics, definitions, etc. for the model.
Paper 3
Hespanha, J., Jardim, M., Paasch, J. and Zevenbergen, J., (2009). Modelling
Legal and Administrative Cadastral Domain: Implementing into the
Portuguese Legal Framework
The article is co-authored with prof. adjunto J. Hespanha, Dr. M. Jardim and
prof. Dr. J. Zevenbergen. Prof. Hespanha took the initiative to the article by
approaching me after my presentation of my initial theories at the Standardi-
15 Paasch (2004a; 2004b).
16
3 Research methodology
The research methodologies are described for each paper below. An over-
view of the design, data collection and validation methods for each paper is
shown in table 1.
Paper 1
Paasch, J. M. (2005). Legal Cadastral Domain Model - An object-
orientated approach
The research was conducted using qualitative research methods; literature
studies, studies in Swedish real property legislation and supplemented with
my own experience in the field of cadastral modelling, gained from partici-
pating in projects modelling Swedish real property rights and public regula-
tions at Lantmäteriet.15 Swedish real property rights and public regulations
are used to exemplify this first, preliminary version of the Legal Cadastral
Domain Model.
Paper 2
Paasch, J. M. (2008). Standardization within the Legal Domain: A Ter-
minological Approach
The research was conducted using a qualitative research method; literature
survey in the fields of comparative law, legal history and terminology func-
tioned as theoretical departure for the paper. International standards on ter-
minology were used as basis for the development of the terminology of the
Legal Cadastral Domain Model. The result is an expanded research hypothe-
sis containing the characteristics, definitions, etc. for the model.
Paper 3
Hespanha, J., Jardim, M., Paasch, J. and Zevenbergen, J., (2009). Modelling
Legal and Administrative Cadastral Domain: Implementing into the
Portuguese Legal Framework
The article is co-authored with prof. adjunto J. Hespanha, Dr. M. Jardim and
prof. Dr. J. Zevenbergen. Prof. Hespanha took the initiative to the article by
approaching me after my presentation of my initial theories at the Standardi-
15 Paasch (2004a; 2004b).
17
zation in the Cadastral Domain Workshop in 2004.16
The research was conducted using a triangulation of qualitative research
methods; research in legislation, literature research and discussions among
the co-authors. Studies in Portuguese legislation and associated (Portuguese
language) literature were conducted by prof. Hespanha and Dr. Jardim. Prof.
Zevenbergen and I contributed with the application of our respective classifi-
cation models and theoretical input on cadastral modelling.
An early draft version of the Land Administration Domain Model, LADM,17
was used as a conceptual base for the study.
All authors participated in the discussions, analysis and formulation of the
results. Communication was done by e-mail. The participation of four au-
thors is to be seen as both expert interviews and validation, since each author
contributed to the result by applying his/her special knowledge and by par-
ticipating in the discussions, analysis and formulation of the results.
Paper 4
Paasch, J. M. (2011). Classification of real property rights - A Compara-
tive Study of Real Property Rights in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands
and Sweden
The research was conducted using a triangulation of qualitative research
methods; research in the selected countries legislations supplemented with
literature research and interviews with national experts.
The investigated legislations are all European, but have nonetheless been
judged as being suitable as input for a first validation of the Legal Model.
The reason for choosing European legislations is that much non-European
legislation historically is based on or influenced by European legislations,
which principles spread to other parts of the world due to e.g. the European
colonisation initiatives in the past.18
The legislations were studied in their national languages, except Dutch,
where English translations were used, when available. The interviews with
the national experts functioned as quality assurance to verify my understan-
ding of the legislation and associated literature. A problem when conducting
16 Paasch (2004c).
17 ISO (2008).
18 Zweigert and Kötz (1998).
17
zation in the Cadastral Domain Workshop in 2004.16
The research was conducted using a triangulation of qualitative research
methods; research in legislation, literature research and discussions among
the co-authors. Studies in Portuguese legislation and associated (Portuguese
language) literature were conducted by prof. Hespanha and Dr. Jardim. Prof.
Zevenbergen and I contributed with the application of our respective classifi-
cation models and theoretical input on cadastral modelling.
An early draft version of the Land Administration Domain Model, LADM,17
was used as a conceptual base for the study.
All authors participated in the discussions, analysis and formulation of the
results. Communication was done by e-mail. The participation of four au-
thors is to be seen as both expert interviews and validation, since each author
contributed to the result by applying his/her special knowledge and by par-
ticipating in the discussions, analysis and formulation of the results.
Paper 4
Paasch, J. M. (2011). Classification of real property rights - A Compara-
tive Study of Real Property Rights in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands
and Sweden
The research was conducted using a triangulation of qualitative research
methods; research in the selected countries legislations supplemented with
literature research and interviews with national experts.
The investigated legislations are all European, but have nonetheless been
judged as being suitable as input for a first validation of the Legal Model.
The reason for choosing European legislations is that much non-European
legislation historically is based on or influenced by European legislations,
which principles spread to other parts of the world due to e.g. the European
colonisation initiatives in the past.18
The legislations were studied in their national languages, except Dutch,
where English translations were used, when available. The interviews with
the national experts functioned as quality assurance to verify my understan-
ding of the legislation and associated literature. A problem when conducting
16 Paasch (2004c).
17 ISO (2008).
18 Zweigert and Kötz (1998).
18
expert interviews is to identify the “right” experts.19 The experts were chosen
based on their expertise in the field of real property rights. They were either
known to me through my international work at Lantmäteriet, recommended
by my supervisors or Lantmäteriet, or identified by approaching public agen-
cies in the studied countries.
The interviewees received information about my research before the inter-
views. The interviews where conducted in person or by e-mail. The inter-
views with the German experts were conducted by e-mail. The Irish expert
was interviewed during a study visit in Dublin in 2009. The Dutch experts
were interviewed during a study visit in Delft, which resulted in a report.20
The report served as a basis for the Dutch case study. The Swedish expert
was interviewed in person. All findings were followed up and validated
through either extra personal meetings and/or e-mail communication.
I did not find it necessary to ask the experts to fill in questionnaires, but
chose to use a direct interview approach. A questionnaire may limit the an-
swers to the capacity of the interviewer, thus risking to “miss” important
information otherwise provided by the expert. The national experts reviewed
a draft of the parts of paper 4 containing their input before publication and/or
were asked to confirm my interpretation of their answers by e-mail.
Paper 5
Paasch, J. M. and Paulsson, J. (2011). Terminological Aspects Concerning
Three-dimensional Real Property
The article is co-authored with Dr. Jenny Paulsson.
The research is conducted using qualitative research methods; literature re-
search and discussions among the co-authors. The co-operation of two au-
thors is to be seen as both expert interviews and validation, since each author
contributed to the result and participated in the discussions, analysis and
formulation of the results by applying their special knowledge.
19 Flick (1998).
20 Paasch (2005).
18
expert interviews is to identify the “right” experts.19 The experts were chosen
based on their expertise in the field of real property rights. They were either
known to me through my international work at Lantmäteriet, recommended
by my supervisors or Lantmäteriet, or identified by approaching public agen-
cies in the studied countries.
The interviewees received information about my research before the inter-
views. The interviews where conducted in person or by e-mail. The inter-
views with the German experts were conducted by e-mail. The Irish expert
was interviewed during a study visit in Dublin in 2009. The Dutch experts
were interviewed during a study visit in Delft, which resulted in a report.20
The report served as a basis for the Dutch case study. The Swedish expert
was interviewed in person. All findings were followed up and validated
through either extra personal meetings and/or e-mail communication.
I did not find it necessary to ask the experts to fill in questionnaires, but
chose to use a direct interview approach. A questionnaire may limit the an-
swers to the capacity of the interviewer, thus risking to “miss” important
information otherwise provided by the expert. The national experts reviewed
a draft of the parts of paper 4 containing their input before publication and/or
were asked to confirm my interpretation of their answers by e-mail.
Paper 5
Paasch, J. M. and Paulsson, J. (2011). Terminological Aspects Concerning
Three-dimensional Real Property
The article is co-authored with Dr. Jenny Paulsson.
The research is conducted using qualitative research methods; literature re-
search and discussions among the co-authors. The co-operation of two au-
thors is to be seen as both expert interviews and validation, since each author
contributed to the result and participated in the discussions, analysis and
formulation of the results by applying their special knowledge.
19 Flick (1998).
20 Paasch (2005).
19
Paper 6
Paasch, J. M. (2012). Modelling of Public Regulations. A Theoretical Ap-
proach
The research is conducted using qualitative research methods; literature stu-
dies on a theoretical approach to analyse the basic functions of real property
ownership and public regulations.
The use of Swedish public regulations as examples is not to be seen as a case
study, but as a mean to exemplify the presented theory of the still preliminary
version of this part of the Legal Cadastral Domain Model.
The model has to be subject for further analysis in different legal systems,
which is outside the scope of this thesis.
19
Paper 6
Paasch, J. M. (2012). Modelling of Public Regulations. A Theoretical Ap-
proach
The research is conducted using qualitative research methods; literature stu-
dies on a theoretical approach to analyse the basic functions of real property
ownership and public regulations.
The use of Swedish public regulations as examples is not to be seen as a case
study, but as a mean to exemplify the presented theory of the still preliminary
version of this part of the Legal Cadastral Domain Model.
The model has to be subject for further analysis in different legal systems,
which is outside the scope of this thesis.
20
Table 1. Design, data collection and validation methods used in paper 1-6.
Paper Design Data
collection Validation
method
Paper 1 Qualitative
National
legislation
Literature
research
Author’s
experience
Literature comparison
Paper 2 Qualitative
Literature
research
Literature comparison
Paper 3 Qualitative Case study
National
legislation
Literature research
Input from
co-authors
Literature comparison
Discussions among
co-authors
Paper 4 Qualitative
Case studies
National
legislation
Literature
research
Expert interviews
Literature
comparison
Expert interviews
Paper 5 Qualitative Literature research
Input from co-
authors
Literature
comparison
Discussions among co-
authors
Paper 6 Qualitative Literature
research
National
legislation
Literature
comparison
20
Table 1. Design, data collection and validation methods used in paper 1-6.
Paper Design Data
collection Validation
method
Paper 1 Qualitative
National
legislation
Literature
research
Author’s
experience
Literature comparison
Paper 2 Qualitative
Literature
research
Literature comparison
Paper 3 Qualitative Case study
National
legislation
Literature research
Input from
co-authors
Literature comparison
Discussions among
co-authors
Paper 4 Qualitative
Case studies
National
legislation
Literature
research
Expert interviews
Literature
comparison
Expert interviews
Paper 5 Qualitative Literature research
Input from co-
authors
Literature
comparison
Discussions among co-
authors
Paper 6 Qualitative Literature
research
National
legislation
Literature
comparison
21
4 Presentation of papers
Paper 1
Paasch, J. M. (2005). Legal Cadastral Domain Model - An object-
orientated approach
The article is published in Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Re-
search. 2005, volume 2, number 1, pp. 117-136.
The scope is to develop (a preliminary version of) the Legal Cadastral Do-
main Model.
The model serves as a hypothesis, stating that it is possible to classify real
property rights and public regulations regardless of their origin in different
legal systems. Such classification would further an international comparison
and exchange of cadastral information. The model is general and focuses on
relations of real property rights and public regulations with the right of ow-
nership. The right of ownership is in the hypothesis seen as the central right,
being benefitted or restricted by other rights.
The development of the model begins with an introduction to cadastral mo-
delling and continues with the construction of a preliminary model. Real pro-
perty rights and regulations can be either beneficial or limiting to the real
property owners’ use of his21 property. The model is exemplified with Swe-
dish real property rights and public restrictions regulating ownership. The
Legal Cadastral Domain Model consists of two parts: A diagram showing the
connections between the included categories and textual descriptions defi-
ning the content of the categories. The diagram is developed in this paper and
based on a preliminary analysis of Swedish real property rights and public
regulations. The definitions and descriptions are developed in article 2.
21 “His”/”he” is hereafter used as a synonym for “her”/”she” throughout this sum-
mary.
21
4 Presentation of papers
Paper 1
Paasch, J. M. (2005). Legal Cadastral Domain Model - An object-
orientated approach
The article is published in Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Re-
search. 2005, volume 2, number 1, pp. 117-136.
The scope is to develop (a preliminary version of) the Legal Cadastral Do-
main Model.
The model serves as a hypothesis, stating that it is possible to classify real
property rights and public regulations regardless of their origin in different
legal systems. Such classification would further an international comparison
and exchange of cadastral information. The model is general and focuses on
relations of real property rights and public regulations with the right of ow-
nership. The right of ownership is in the hypothesis seen as the central right,
being benefitted or restricted by other rights.
The development of the model begins with an introduction to cadastral mo-
delling and continues with the construction of a preliminary model. Real pro-
perty rights and regulations can be either beneficial or limiting to the real
property owners’ use of his21 property. The model is exemplified with Swe-
dish real property rights and public restrictions regulating ownership. The
Legal Cadastral Domain Model consists of two parts: A diagram showing the
connections between the included categories and textual descriptions defi-
ning the content of the categories. The diagram is developed in this paper and
based on a preliminary analysis of Swedish real property rights and public
regulations. The definitions and descriptions are developed in article 2.
21 “His”/”he” is hereafter used as a synonym for “her”/”she” throughout this sum-
mary.
22
Paper 2
Paasch, J. M. (2008). Standardization within the Legal Domain: A Ter-
minological Approach
The article is published in Doganoglu, T., Holler, M. J. and Tiedeman, J.
(eds.) EURAS Yearbook of Standardization. 2008, volume 6, pp. 105-130.
On-line publication.
The scope is to develop the terminology for the Legal Cadastral Domain
Model presented in paper 1.
The article starts with an account on historical initiatives aiming at introdu-
cing standardized terminological frameworks to legal domain. The article
then presents a terminological approach for describing and defining objects.
The focus is then shifted towards the development of a legal terminology for
the Legal Cadastral Domain Model.
The intention is that the model’s terminological framework does not interfere
with the different legal systems in existence, but create a standardized termi-
nology for classification of real property rights and public regulations.
Paper 3
Hespanha, J., Jardim, M., Paasch, J. and Zevenbergen, J., (2009). Modelling
Legal and Administrative Cadastral Domain: Implementing into the
Portuguese Legal Framework
The article is published in Journal of Comparative Law. 2009, vol. 4, issue 1,
pp. 140-169.
The scope is to compare the Legal Cadastral Domain Model with a model
published by prof. Zevenbergen.22 Both models were applied on the Portu-
guese cadastral domain legislation.
The research identifies some differences between models. The article states
that “[t]he main difference between the Paasch and Zevenbergen classifica-
tions of real rights relate to the legal doctrinal base. Zevenbergen’s classifica-
tion is built on the tradition of civil codes throughout Western and Southern
Europe rooted in Roman law. Paasch’s classification is more functional and
should be able to fit the set of rights, restrictions and responsibilities regar-
22 Zevenbergen (2004).
22
Paper 2
Paasch, J. M. (2008). Standardization within the Legal Domain: A Ter-
minological Approach
The article is published in Doganoglu, T., Holler, M. J. and Tiedeman, J.
(eds.) EURAS Yearbook of Standardization. 2008, volume 6, pp. 105-130.
On-line publication.
The scope is to develop the terminology for the Legal Cadastral Domain
Model presented in paper 1.
The article starts with an account on historical initiatives aiming at introdu-
cing standardized terminological frameworks to legal domain. The article
then presents a terminological approach for describing and defining objects.
The focus is then shifted towards the development of a legal terminology for
the Legal Cadastral Domain Model.
The intention is that the model’s terminological framework does not interfere
with the different legal systems in existence, but create a standardized termi-
nology for classification of real property rights and public regulations.
Paper 3
Hespanha, J., Jardim, M., Paasch, J. and Zevenbergen, J., (2009). Modelling
Legal and Administrative Cadastral Domain: Implementing into the
Portuguese Legal Framework
The article is published in Journal of Comparative Law. 2009, vol. 4, issue 1,
pp. 140-169.
The scope is to compare the Legal Cadastral Domain Model with a model
published by prof. Zevenbergen.22 Both models were applied on the Portu-
guese cadastral domain legislation.
The research identifies some differences between models. The article states
that “[t]he main difference between the Paasch and Zevenbergen classifica-
tions of real rights relate to the legal doctrinal base. Zevenbergen’s classifica-
tion is built on the tradition of civil codes throughout Western and Southern
Europe rooted in Roman law. Paasch’s classification is more functional and
should be able to fit the set of rights, restrictions and responsibilities regar-
22 Zevenbergen (2004).
23
ding land in any legal system of the world, but in a way that challenges the
average expert of the legal system through the use of unfamiliar “neutral”
terminology. In the Portuguese implementation presented here, Zevenber-
gen’s classification fitted better, but for a generic LADM the classification
by Paasch should be more appropriate.”23
The article is the result of discussions among the co-authors and e.g. “the
class diagram in Figure 2 was obtained after lengthy discussions between the
co-authors and should be regarded as a best fit and not a unanimously agreed
result.”24
Paper 4
Paasch, J. M. (2011). Classification of Real Property Rights - A Compara-
tive Study of Real Property Rights in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands
and Sweden
The study is published as a report at KTH. TRITA-FOB Report 2011:1.
The scope is through case studies on real property rights in Germany, Ire-
land, the Netherlands and Sweden to test whether it is possible to classify
national rights according to the Legal Cadastral Domain Model and thereby
confirm, reject or further develop the model.
The case studies resulted in minor modifications to make the model capable
of describing all investigated rights in the four countries. The case studies
also showed that some terms used in the model are not consistent with their
general (English) use in the cadastral domain. The report also proposes some
changes in the terminology to make the model more clear and accessible.
Paper 5
Paasch, J. M. and Paulsson, J. (2011). Terminological Aspects Concerning
Three-dimensional Real Property
The article is published in Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Re-
search. 2011, volume 8, number 1, pp. 81-97.
The scope is to discuss terminological aspects concerning definitions of 3D
23 Paper 3 in this thesis (pp. 168-169).
24 Paper 3 in this thesis (p. 168).
23
ding land in any legal system of the world, but in a way that challenges the
average expert of the legal system through the use of unfamiliar “neutral”
terminology. In the Portuguese implementation presented here, Zevenber-
gen’s classification fitted better, but for a generic LADM the classification
by Paasch should be more appropriate.”23
The article is the result of discussions among the co-authors and e.g. “the
class diagram in Figure 2 was obtained after lengthy discussions between the
co-authors and should be regarded as a best fit and not a unanimously agreed
result.”24
Paper 4
Paasch, J. M. (2011). Classification of Real Property Rights - A Compara-
tive Study of Real Property Rights in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands
and Sweden
The study is published as a report at KTH. TRITA-FOB Report 2011:1.
The scope is through case studies on real property rights in Germany, Ire-
land, the Netherlands and Sweden to test whether it is possible to classify
national rights according to the Legal Cadastral Domain Model and thereby
confirm, reject or further develop the model.
The case studies resulted in minor modifications to make the model capable
of describing all investigated rights in the four countries. The case studies
also showed that some terms used in the model are not consistent with their
general (English) use in the cadastral domain. The report also proposes some
changes in the terminology to make the model more clear and accessible.
Paper 5
Paasch, J. M. and Paulsson, J. (2011). Terminological Aspects Concerning
Three-dimensional Real Property
The article is published in Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Re-
search. 2011, volume 8, number 1, pp. 81-97.
The scope is to discuss terminological aspects concerning definitions of 3D
23 Paper 3 in this thesis (pp. 168-169).
24 Paper 3 in this thesis (p. 168).
24
real property. The selection of 3D definitions is based on Dr. Paulsson’s re-
search on 3D property rights.
The paper does not present a solution of how to develop and maintain a 3D
terminology, but discusses existing definitions and point at the terminologi-
cal aspects of creating a 3D real property definition. The paper highlight an
existing definition stating that 3D property is legally delimited both vertically
and horizontally, i.e. focussing on the legal aspects of real property. The pa-
per is an input for further research regarding the nature and structures of 3D
property.
Paper 6
Paasch, J. M. (2012). Modelling of Public Regulations. A Theoretical Ap-
proach
The article has been submitted for peer-review to Nordic Journal of Survey-
ing and Real Estate Research in May this year.
The scope is to develop the public regulation part of the Legal Cadastral
Domain Model presented in paper 1 and 2. The article analyses the concepts
of regulations according to how they regulate the use of land and influence
real property ownership.
The result is a more detailed version of the public regulations part of the
model, classifying regulations into prohibitions, obligations or advantages
influencing the ownership right to real property.
5 Conclusions
The research presented in paper 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 in this thesis show the deve-
lopment of the Legal Cadastral Domain Model.
History has shown that earlier attempts have been made to describe the legal
domain. These attempts have failed due to too ambitious plans to describe
“everything”.25 The research presented in this thesis show that it is seems
possible to describe a limited part of the legal domain and create a standar-
dized, terminological framework for exchange of real property rights and
public regulations regardless of the legal systems they are created in.
25 See paper 2 in this thesis for references.
24
real property. The selection of 3D definitions is based on Dr. Paulsson’s re-
search on 3D property rights.
The paper does not present a solution of how to develop and maintain a 3D
terminology, but discusses existing definitions and point at the terminologi-
cal aspects of creating a 3D real property definition. The paper highlight an
existing definition stating that 3D property is legally delimited both vertically
and horizontally, i.e. focussing on the legal aspects of real property. The pa-
per is an input for further research regarding the nature and structures of 3D
property.
Paper 6
Paasch, J. M. (2012). Modelling of Public Regulations. A Theoretical Ap-
proach
The article has been submitted for peer-review to Nordic Journal of Survey-
ing and Real Estate Research in May this year.
The scope is to develop the public regulation part of the Legal Cadastral
Domain Model presented in paper 1 and 2. The article analyses the concepts
of regulations according to how they regulate the use of land and influence
real property ownership.
The result is a more detailed version of the public regulations part of the
model, classifying regulations into prohibitions, obligations or advantages
influencing the ownership right to real property.
5 Conclusions
The research presented in paper 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 in this thesis show the deve-
lopment of the Legal Cadastral Domain Model.
History has shown that earlier attempts have been made to describe the legal
domain. These attempts have failed due to too ambitious plans to describe
“everything”.25 The research presented in this thesis show that it is seems
possible to describe a limited part of the legal domain and create a standar-
dized, terminological framework for exchange of real property rights and
public regulations regardless of the legal systems they are created in.
25 See paper 2 in this thesis for references.
25
Paper 3 states that the model may be difficult to access due to its use of an
unfamiliar, neutral terminology not based on any legal system. It is however
concluded that the model is suitable for a generic classification of real pro-
perty rights and public regulations.
The model is further developed in paper 4 and show that the model seems to
be suitable for classifying real property rights. At least rights and restrictions
in western legal systems which were subject for the case studies in paper 3
and 4. The model did however have to be slightly modified to encompass all
encountered real property rights in the four analysed legislations.
Paper 5 does not directly contribute to the development of the Legal Cadas-
tral Domain Model, but discusses existing definitions and point at the termi-
nological aspects of creating a 3D real property definition. The paper how-
ever contributes indirectly to the development of the model by illustrating the
importance of terminology in legal, cadastral research.
The public regulation part of the Legal Cadastral Domain Model has been
further developed in paper 6. The part is however only based on Swedish
legislations and has to be regarded as a preliminary model in need of further
testing in other legal systems.
An important aspect of the Legal Cadastral Domain Model is the attempt to
abolish specific terms rooted in a nation’s legal tradition when communica-
ting internationally. They have no place in a standardized legal model func-
tioning as a terminological framework and system for classification. How-
ever, the model does not recommend any change of national terminology.
National terms should remain in use in national legislations. This research
does not indicate otherwise. The proposed model is not a judgement against
other legal classifications such as Common Law and Civil Law, but an at-
tempt to further the international exchange of information belonging to the
cadastral domain.
The result of my research is the updated Legal Cadastral Domain Model
shown in figure 2. The definitions of the classes are listed in appendix 1.
25
Paper 3 states that the model may be difficult to access due to its use of an
unfamiliar, neutral terminology not based on any legal system. It is however
concluded that the model is suitable for a generic classification of real pro-
perty rights and public regulations.
The model is further developed in paper 4 and show that the model seems to
be suitable for classifying real property rights. At least rights and restrictions
in western legal systems which were subject for the case studies in paper 3
and 4. The model did however have to be slightly modified to encompass all
encountered real property rights in the four analysed legislations.
Paper 5 does not directly contribute to the development of the Legal Cadas-
tral Domain Model, but discusses existing definitions and point at the termi-
nological aspects of creating a 3D real property definition. The paper how-
ever contributes indirectly to the development of the model by illustrating the
importance of terminology in legal, cadastral research.
The public regulation part of the Legal Cadastral Domain Model has been
further developed in paper 6. The part is however only based on Swedish
legislations and has to be regarded as a preliminary model in need of further
testing in other legal systems.
An important aspect of the Legal Cadastral Domain Model is the attempt to
abolish specific terms rooted in a nation’s legal tradition when communica-
ting internationally. They have no place in a standardized legal model func-
tioning as a terminological framework and system for classification. How-
ever, the model does not recommend any change of national terminology.
National terms should remain in use in national legislations. This research
does not indicate otherwise. The proposed model is not a judgement against
other legal classifications such as Common Law and Civil Law, but an at-
tempt to further the international exchange of information belonging to the
cadastral domain.
The result of my research is the updated Legal Cadastral Domain Model
shown in figure 2. The definitions of the classes are listed in appendix 1.
26
Figure 2. The Legal Cadastral Domain Model.
26
Figure 2. The Legal Cadastral Domain Model.
27
6 Discussion
The Legal Cadastral Domain Model seems to be suitable for classifying real
property rights and public regulations. There are however some issues to be
addressed.
The classification in the real property rights part of the model is for the
Common, Property to property right and Person to property right classes
based on who is executing the relation to real property ownership, i.e. if a
real property owned by another real property, a property to property relation
or a person to property relation. The Monetary liability class is based on what
the relation consist of, i.e. an economical content and not who is executing
the relation. The Latent right class is based on a temporal condition stating
that the rights are not executed yet.
A deeper analysis of who is influencing real property ownership has not been
conducted. The rights are only “mirrored” in the model depending on their
positive or negative influence on real property ownership, i.e. if the rights are
beneficial or encumbering to real property ownership.
The public regulation classes are, however, based on how they influence real
property ownership, i.e. what actions are prohibited, obligatory or voluntary
to perform on a real property by the owner.
I was aware of these conceptual differences when writing paper 6, but my
initial attempts to classify the public regulation classes according to who was
executing the regulations did not succeed. It would limit the model to how
public administration is structured into administrative units (e.g. municipali-
ties, counties, etc.) and not what type of relation the regulation executes.26
The model is therefore not homogenous in describing the nature of the rela-
tions influencing real property ownership. It may be argued that the model
would benefit from being consistent in the structure of the relations influen-
cing real property ownership. However, that would involve competence in
e.g. organisational and management theory to investigate if the model could
be changed to describe either who is influencing ownership, what does the
influence consist of or how is real property ownership influenced.
26 A classification of administrative units already exists, at least within the European
Union. The classification is based on an existing classification of territorial units for
statistics. See INSPIRE (2010b, annex B).
27
6 Discussion
The Legal Cadastral Domain Model seems to be suitable for classifying real
property rights and public regulations. There are however some issues to be
addressed.
The classification in the real property rights part of the model is for the
Common, Property to property right and Person to property right classes
based on who is executing the relation to real property ownership, i.e. if a
real property owned by another real property, a property to property relation
or a person to property relation. The Monetary liability class is based on what
the relation consist of, i.e. an economical content and not who is executing
the relation. The Latent right class is based on a temporal condition stating
that the rights are not executed yet.
A deeper analysis of who is influencing real property ownership has not been
conducted. The rights are only “mirrored” in the model depending on their
positive or negative influence on real property ownership, i.e. if the rights are
beneficial or encumbering to real property ownership.
The public regulation classes are, however, based on how they influence real
property ownership, i.e. what actions are prohibited, obligatory or voluntary
to perform on a real property by the owner.
I was aware of these conceptual differences when writing paper 6, but my
initial attempts to classify the public regulation classes according to who was
executing the regulations did not succeed. It would limit the model to how
public administration is structured into administrative units (e.g. municipali-
ties, counties, etc.) and not what type of relation the regulation executes.26
The model is therefore not homogenous in describing the nature of the rela-
tions influencing real property ownership. It may be argued that the model
would benefit from being consistent in the structure of the relations influen-
cing real property ownership. However, that would involve competence in
e.g. organisational and management theory to investigate if the model could
be changed to describe either who is influencing ownership, what does the
influence consist of or how is real property ownership influenced.
26 A classification of administrative units already exists, at least within the European
Union. The classification is based on an existing classification of territorial units for
statistics. See INSPIRE (2010b, annex B).
28
Paper 1 uses the term public restrictions as a general term for public regula-
tions. This is however not correct since restrictions are part of public regula-
tions. This terminological inconsistency has been corrected in paper 6.
7 Future research
The validation of the Legal Cadastral Domain Model has so far been con-
ducted by testing the model on Western legal systems. It is therefore not
possible to determine whether the model is suitable for classifying real pro-
perty rights and public regulations not covered in the case studies, even if
they are judged as sufficient for validating this version of the model. Re-
search in non-Western legal systems is therefore needed to further test and
develop the model.
There are other research issues which could further develop the model in the
future, e.g.:
The model describes the “highest level” of rights and public regulations, i.e.
without any deeper specialisation. Further research could aim at expanding
the model by e.g. adding sub-classes to specialise the rights extension in time
or if the rights or regulations are covering the entire real property or part(s)
of it. It would also be of interest to analyse the financial content(s) of rights
belonging to the Monetary liability class to investigate if they contain struc-
tures which could be used for further specialisation of the class.
The case studies in paper 3 and 4 focus on formal rights, whereas so-called
informal rights have not been discussed. Informal rights are important in
developing countries as an instrument of land management and have gained
increased attention in academic circles in resent years.27 Such informal rela-
tions should also be incorporated in future research activities.
The case studies in paper 4 have touched upon the concept of rights in rights,
which also is an interesting subject for further research.
Another subject for future research activities is to apply the conceptual thin-
king of the Legal Cadastral Domain Model on existing national registers, i.e.
an investigation of the financial, technical and organisational impacts an
implementation of the model would have on (re)structuring the content of
national registers.
27 E.g. Ubink (2008) and Zevenbergen (2002). See also Lemmen (2010) on the im-
portance of securing social rights in developing countries.
28
Paper 1 uses the term public restrictions as a general term for public regula-
tions. This is however not correct since restrictions are part of public regula-
tions. This terminological inconsistency has been corrected in paper 6.
7 Future research
The validation of the Legal Cadastral Domain Model has so far been con-
ducted by testing the model on Western legal systems. It is therefore not
possible to determine whether the model is suitable for classifying real pro-
perty rights and public regulations not covered in the case studies, even if
they are judged as sufficient for validating this version of the model. Re-
search in non-Western legal systems is therefore needed to further test and
develop the model.
There are other research issues which could further develop the model in the
future, e.g.:
The model describes the “highest level” of rights and public regulations, i.e.
without any deeper specialisation. Further research could aim at expanding
the model by e.g. adding sub-classes to specialise the rights extension in time
or if the rights or regulations are covering the entire real property or part(s)
of it. It would also be of interest to analyse the financial content(s) of rights
belonging to the Monetary liability class to investigate if they contain struc-
tures which could be used for further specialisation of the class.
The case studies in paper 3 and 4 focus on formal rights, whereas so-called
informal rights have not been discussed. Informal rights are important in
developing countries as an instrument of land management and have gained
increased attention in academic circles in resent years.27 Such informal rela-
tions should also be incorporated in future research activities.
The case studies in paper 4 have touched upon the concept of rights in rights,
which also is an interesting subject for further research.
Another subject for future research activities is to apply the conceptual thin-
king of the Legal Cadastral Domain Model on existing national registers, i.e.
an investigation of the financial, technical and organisational impacts an
implementation of the model would have on (re)structuring the content of
national registers.
27 E.g. Ubink (2008) and Zevenbergen (2002). See also Lemmen (2010) on the im-
portance of securing social rights in developing countries.
29
Paper 5 presents a terminological research on three-dimensional (3D) real
property. It would be of value for the future development of the Legal Cadas-
tral Domain Model if similar research was conducted on the terminological
aspects of the legal components of real property rights and public regula-
tions.
Paper 6 presents a preliminary model of public regulations exemplified with
Swedish regulations. It would therefore be of value if this part of the model
could be tested on other national legislations to validate, reject of further
develop the model.
The research presented in this thesis aim at being in accordance with the
Land Administration Domain Model, LADM. I have however chosen not to
directly incorporate the LADM in my research, except for paper 3, since the
standard is still under development. I hope that my research may be an input
to further develop the legal part of the LADM in the future.
8 Svensk sammanfattning (Swedish summary)
Denna avhandling är resultatet av min forskning inom standardisering av
markreglerande rättigheter och offentligrättsliga regleringar på Kungliga
Tekniska Högskolan, KTH, Stockholm.
Syftet med forskningen har varit att undersöka om det är möjligt att utveckla
en modell som möjliggör internationella jämförelser avseende markanknutna
rättigheter och offentligrättsliga regleringar som påverkar äganderätten till
fast egendom. Modellen som tagits fram benämns Legal Cadastral Domain
Model.
Avhandlingen består av en sammanfattning (summary) och 6 publikationer,
presenterade som paper 1-6 i denna avhandling. Paper 1, 2, 3 och 5 är artiklar
publicerade i referentgranskade vetenskapliga tidskrifter. Paper 4 är en rap-
port publicerad på KTH. Paper 6 är en artikel som har skickats till en veten-
skaplig tidskrift för referentgranskning.
Modellen och den därtill hörande teoribildningen är utvecklad i paper 1 och
2. Därefter genomfördes fallstudier med syftet att testa modellen genom att
klassificera rättigheter och regleringar i portugisisk lagstiftning, samt rättig-
heter i tysk, irländsk, nederländsk och svensk lagstiftning. Fallstudierna finns
beskrivna i paper 3 och 4.
29
Paper 5 presents a terminological research on three-dimensional (3D) real
property. It would be of value for the future development of the Legal Cadas-
tral Domain Model if similar research was conducted on the terminological
aspects of the legal components of real property rights and public regula-
tions.
Paper 6 presents a preliminary model of public regulations exemplified with
Swedish regulations. It would therefore be of value if this part of the model
could be tested on other national legislations to validate, reject of further
develop the model.
The research presented in this thesis aim at being in accordance with the
Land Administration Domain Model, LADM. I have however chosen not to
directly incorporate the LADM in my research, except for paper 3, since the
standard is still under development. I hope that my research may be an input
to further develop the legal part of the LADM in the future.
8 Svensk sammanfattning (Swedish summary)
Denna avhandling är resultatet av min forskning inom standardisering av
markreglerande rättigheter och offentligrättsliga regleringar på Kungliga
Tekniska Högskolan, KTH, Stockholm.
Syftet med forskningen har varit att undersöka om det är möjligt att utveckla
en modell som möjliggör internationella jämförelser avseende markanknutna
rättigheter och offentligrättsliga regleringar som påverkar äganderätten till
fast egendom. Modellen som tagits fram benämns Legal Cadastral Domain
Model.
Avhandlingen består av en sammanfattning (summary) och 6 publikationer,
presenterade som paper 1-6 i denna avhandling. Paper 1, 2, 3 och 5 är artiklar
publicerade i referentgranskade vetenskapliga tidskrifter. Paper 4 är en rap-
port publicerad på KTH. Paper 6 är en artikel som har skickats till en veten-
skaplig tidskrift för referentgranskning.
Modellen och den därtill hörande teoribildningen är utvecklad i paper 1 och
2. Därefter genomfördes fallstudier med syftet att testa modellen genom att
klassificera rättigheter och regleringar i portugisisk lagstiftning, samt rättig-
heter i tysk, irländsk, nederländsk och svensk lagstiftning. Fallstudierna finns
beskrivna i paper 3 och 4.
30
I paper 3 jämförs min modell med en annan konceptuell modell för klassifi-
cering av rättigheter och regleringar som bygger på annorlunda principer.
Resultat är att båda modellerna är användbara, men min modell kan vara
krävande att ta till sig eftersom den inte är baserad på redan etablerade termer
inom juridiken. Det verkar å andra sidan som om min modell har större po-
tential som utgångspunkt för en ”neutral” klassificering av rättigheter och
regleringar, oberoende av rättsliga system.
Resultatet från fallstudierna i paper 4 visar att modellen kan användas för
klassificering av existerande rättigheter och regleringar, med undantag av
några enstaka rättigheter som inte uppfyllde alla krav för inplacering i rättig-
hetsgrupperna. Analysen är redovisad i paper 4. Modellen har därför modifi-
erats för att kunna klassificera alla rättigheter som påträffats vid undersök-
ningen. Dessutom visade det sig att några engelska termer inte var lämpliga
att använda för att beskriva markanknutna rättigheter. Även dessa har uppda-
terats i paper 4.
Paper 5 innehåller en terminologisk analys av begrepp som används interna-
tionellt för tredimensionell (3D) fastighetsindelning.
Paper 6 innehåller en analys av det konceptuella innehållet i offentligrättsliga
regleringar rörande markanvändning. Resultatet används för att vidareut-
veckla den del av modellen i paper 1 och 2 som beskriver offentligrättsliga
regleringar.
Forskningsprojektet har visat att det är möjligt att strukturera en begränsad
del av ett rättsligt område, och att konstruera en neutral modell för att klassi-
ficera markanknutna rättigheter och offentligrättsliga regleringar, oberoende
av vilka (västeuropeiska) rättsliga system de skapats i. Modellen behöver
testas på andra rättsliga system för att säkerställa att den kan tillämpas på
global nivå. Modellens grafiska del kan ses i figur 2 i avsnitt 5. Definitioner-
na av klasserna som ingår i modellen finns i appendix 1.
9 References
Bogdan, M. (2004). On the Value and Method of Rule-Comparison in Com-
parative Law. In Festschrift für Erik Jayme (pp. 1233-1242). European Law
Publishers, Munich. 2004.
INSPIRE (2007). Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Informa-
tion in the European Community (INSPIRE) 14.03.2007. In Official Journal
30
I paper 3 jämförs min modell med en annan konceptuell modell för klassifi-
cering av rättigheter och regleringar som bygger på annorlunda principer.
Resultat är att båda modellerna är användbara, men min modell kan vara
krävande att ta till sig eftersom den inte är baserad på redan etablerade termer
inom juridiken. Det verkar å andra sidan som om min modell har större po-
tential som utgångspunkt för en ”neutral” klassificering av rättigheter och
regleringar, oberoende av rättsliga system.
Resultatet från fallstudierna i paper 4 visar att modellen kan användas för
klassificering av existerande rättigheter och regleringar, med undantag av
några enstaka rättigheter som inte uppfyllde alla krav för inplacering i rättig-
hetsgrupperna. Analysen är redovisad i paper 4. Modellen har därför modifi-
erats för att kunna klassificera alla rättigheter som påträffats vid undersök-
ningen. Dessutom visade det sig att några engelska termer inte var lämpliga
att använda för att beskriva markanknutna rättigheter. Även dessa har uppda-
terats i paper 4.
Paper 5 innehåller en terminologisk analys av begrepp som används interna-
tionellt för tredimensionell (3D) fastighetsindelning.
Paper 6 innehåller en analys av det konceptuella innehållet i offentligrättsliga
regleringar rörande markanvändning. Resultatet används för att vidareut-
veckla den del av modellen i paper 1 och 2 som beskriver offentligrättsliga
regleringar.
Forskningsprojektet har visat att det är möjligt att strukturera en begränsad
del av ett rättsligt område, och att konstruera en neutral modell för att klassi-
ficera markanknutna rättigheter och offentligrättsliga regleringar, oberoende
av vilka (västeuropeiska) rättsliga system de skapats i. Modellen behöver
testas på andra rättsliga system för att säkerställa att den kan tillämpas på
global nivå. Modellens grafiska del kan ses i figur 2 i avsnitt 5. Definitioner-
na av klasserna som ingår i modellen finns i appendix 1.
9 References
Bogdan, M. (2004). On the Value and Method of Rule-Comparison in Com-
parative Law. In Festschrift für Erik Jayme (pp. 1233-1242). European Law
Publishers, Munich. 2004.
INSPIRE (2007). Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Informa-
tion in the European Community (INSPIRE) 14.03.2007. In Official Journal
31
of the European Union L 108/1.
INSPIRE (2010a). D2.8.I.6 INSPIRE Data Specification on Cadastral Par-
cels – Guidelines. INSPIRE Thematic Working Group Cadastral Parcels.
European Union. Version 3.0.1. 2010-04-26
INSPIRE (2010b). D2.8.I.4 INSPIRE Data Specification on Administrative
Units – Guidelines. INSPIRE Thematic Working Group Administrative
Units. European Union. Version 3.0.1. 2010-04-26.
ISO (2008). Working Draft 19152. Geographic Information - Land Admini-
stration Domain Model (LADM). Draft International Standard. Lysaker,
Norway. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO/TC 211
Sekretariat, Standards Norway. Non-public document.
ISO (2011). ISO/DIS 19152. Geographic Information - Land Administration
Domain Model (LADM). Draft International Standard. Lysaker, Norway.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO/TC 211 Sekre-
tariat, Standards Norway. Non-public document.
ITC-ESRI (2003). Proceedings of the Workshop on Cadastral Data Model-
ling. March 17-18 2003. ITC, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Laarakker, P. and Gustafsson, S. (2004). European Land Information Service
(EULIS). In van Loenen, B. and Kock , B. (eds.). Spatial Data Infrastructure
and Policy Development in Europe and the United States. 2004, pp. 47-58.
Delft University Press, the Netherlands.
Lemmen, C. (2010). The Social Tenure Domain Model. A Pro-Poor Land
Tool. FIG publication no. 52. The International Federation of Surveyors
(FIG), Copenhagen. 2010.
Flick, U. (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 4th ed. 2009. Sage
Publications, London.
van Oosterom, P., Stoter, J.E. and Fendel, E.M. (2001) (eds.). Proceedings
Registration of Properties in Strata –International Workshop on “3D Cadas-
tres”. 2001. Delft, the Netherlands.
van Oosterom, P., Schlieder, C., Zevenbergen, J., Hess, C. and Lemmen, C.,
Fendel, E. (2004) (eds.). Proceedings of the Standardization in the Cadastral
Domain Workshop. 9-10 December 2004, Bamberg, Germany. 2nd ed. 2006.
International Federation of Surveyors, Copenhagen.
31
of the European Union L 108/1.
INSPIRE (2010a). D2.8.I.6 INSPIRE Data Specification on Cadastral Par-
cels – Guidelines. INSPIRE Thematic Working Group Cadastral Parcels.
European Union. Version 3.0.1. 2010-04-26
INSPIRE (2010b). D2.8.I.4 INSPIRE Data Specification on Administrative
Units – Guidelines. INSPIRE Thematic Working Group Administrative
Units. European Union. Version 3.0.1. 2010-04-26.
ISO (2008). Working Draft 19152. Geographic Information - Land Admini-
stration Domain Model (LADM). Draft International Standard. Lysaker,
Norway. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO/TC 211
Sekretariat, Standards Norway. Non-public document.
ISO (2011). ISO/DIS 19152. Geographic Information - Land Administration
Domain Model (LADM). Draft International Standard. Lysaker, Norway.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO/TC 211 Sekre-
tariat, Standards Norway. Non-public document.
ITC-ESRI (2003). Proceedings of the Workshop on Cadastral Data Model-
ling. March 17-18 2003. ITC, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Laarakker, P. and Gustafsson, S. (2004). European Land Information Service
(EULIS). In van Loenen, B. and Kock , B. (eds.). Spatial Data Infrastructure
and Policy Development in Europe and the United States. 2004, pp. 47-58.
Delft University Press, the Netherlands.
Lemmen, C. (2010). The Social Tenure Domain Model. A Pro-Poor Land
Tool. FIG publication no. 52. The International Federation of Surveyors
(FIG), Copenhagen. 2010.
Flick, U. (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 4th ed. 2009. Sage
Publications, London.
van Oosterom, P., Stoter, J.E. and Fendel, E.M. (2001) (eds.). Proceedings
Registration of Properties in Strata –International Workshop on “3D Cadas-
tres”. 2001. Delft, the Netherlands.
van Oosterom, P., Schlieder, C., Zevenbergen, J., Hess, C. and Lemmen, C.,
Fendel, E. (2004) (eds.). Proceedings of the Standardization in the Cadastral
Domain Workshop. 9-10 December 2004, Bamberg, Germany. 2nd ed. 2006.
International Federation of Surveyors, Copenhagen.
32
van Oosterom, P., Lemmen, C., Ingvarsson, P., van der Molen, P., Ploeger,
H., Quack, C., Stoter, J. and Zevenbergen, J. (2006). The Core Cadastral
Domain Model. In Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, vol. 30, no.
5, 2006 (pp. 627-660). Elsevier, Amsterdam.
van Oosterom, P., Fendel, E., Stoter, J. and Streilein, A. (2011) (eds.). Pro-
ceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on 3D Cadastres. 16-18 No-
vember 2011, Delft, the Netherlands. International Federation of Surveyors
(FIG), Copenhagen.
Paasch, J. M. (2004a). A Cadastral Domain Model. In Proceedings of the
12th International Conference on Geoinformatics, 7-9 June 2004 (pp. 820-
823). University of Gävle, Sweden.
Paasch, J. M. (2004b) Modelling the Cadastral Domain. In Proceedings of
the 10th EC-GI Workshop, Warsaw, Poland, 23-25 June 2004 (pp. 31-32).
European Union, Joint Research Centre.
Paasch, J. M. (2004c). A Legal Cadastral Domain Model. In Proceedings of
the "Standardization in the Cadastral Domain" Workshop, Bamberg, Ger-
many, 9-10 December 2004. 2nd ed. 2006 (pp. 145-148). International Fe-
deration of Surveyors (FIG), Copenhagen.
Paasch, J. M. (2005). Modelling Dutch Rights and Restrictions for Real
Property Transactions. Short Term Scientific Mission at Delft University of
Technology, the Netherlands. October 2-7 2005. Report, COST, Action G9.
Reference number COST-STSM-G9-1613.
Ploeger, H. and van Loenen, B., (2004). EULIS – At the Beginning of the
Road to Harmonization of Land Registry in Europe. In European Review of
Private Law, vol. 3, 2004 (pp. 379-389).
Ploeger, H. and van Loenen, B. (2005). Harmonization of Land Registry in
Europe. In Proceedings of the FIG Working Week 2005 and 8th International
Conference on the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI-8), 16-21 April
2005, Cairo, Egypt. International Federation of Surveyors (FIG),
Copenhagen.
SOU (1966). Fastighetsregistrering. Statens Officiella Utredningar 1966:63.
Justitiedepartementet, Stockholm, Sweden. 1966.
32
van Oosterom, P., Lemmen, C., Ingvarsson, P., van der Molen, P., Ploeger,
H., Quack, C., Stoter, J. and Zevenbergen, J. (2006). The Core Cadastral
Domain Model. In Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, vol. 30, no.
5, 2006 (pp. 627-660). Elsevier, Amsterdam.
van Oosterom, P., Fendel, E., Stoter, J. and Streilein, A. (2011) (eds.). Pro-
ceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on 3D Cadastres. 16-18 No-
vember 2011, Delft, the Netherlands. International Federation of Surveyors
(FIG), Copenhagen.
Paasch, J. M. (2004a). A Cadastral Domain Model. In Proceedings of the
12th International Conference on Geoinformatics, 7-9 June 2004 (pp. 820-
823). University of Gävle, Sweden.
Paasch, J. M. (2004b) Modelling the Cadastral Domain. In Proceedings of
the 10th EC-GI Workshop, Warsaw, Poland, 23-25 June 2004 (pp. 31-32).
European Union, Joint Research Centre.
Paasch, J. M. (2004c). A Legal Cadastral Domain Model. In Proceedings of
the "Standardization in the Cadastral Domain" Workshop, Bamberg, Ger-
many, 9-10 December 2004. 2nd ed. 2006 (pp. 145-148). International Fe-
deration of Surveyors (FIG), Copenhagen.
Paasch, J. M. (2005). Modelling Dutch Rights and Restrictions for Real
Property Transactions. Short Term Scientific Mission at Delft University of
Technology, the Netherlands. October 2-7 2005. Report, COST, Action G9.
Reference number COST-STSM-G9-1613.
Ploeger, H. and van Loenen, B., (2004). EULIS – At the Beginning of the
Road to Harmonization of Land Registry in Europe. In European Review of
Private Law, vol. 3, 2004 (pp. 379-389).
Ploeger, H. and van Loenen, B. (2005). Harmonization of Land Registry in
Europe. In Proceedings of the FIG Working Week 2005 and 8th International
Conference on the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI-8), 16-21 April
2005, Cairo, Egypt. International Federation of Surveyors (FIG),
Copenhagen.
SOU (1966). Fastighetsregistrering. Statens Officiella Utredningar 1966:63.
Justitiedepartementet, Stockholm, Sweden. 1966.
33
Spivak, S. M. and Brenner, F. C. (2001). Standardization Essentials: Princi-
ples and Practice. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York. 2001.
UNECE (2004). Guidelines on Real Property Units and Identifiers. Working
Party on Land Administration (WPLA). United Nations Economic Commis-
sion for Europe (UNECE). ECE/HBP/135. 2004.
Ubink, J. M. (2008). In the Land of the Chiefs. Customary Law, Land con-
flicts, and the Role of the State in Peri-Urban Ghana. Leiden University
Press, the Netherlands. 2008.
Zevenbergen, J. (2002). Systems of Land Registration. Aspects and Effects.
Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. 2002.
Zevenbergen, J. (2004). Expanding the Legal/administrative Package of the
Cadastral Domain Model – from Grey to Yellow? In Proceedings of the
"Standardization in the Cadastral Domain" Workshop, Bamberg, Germany,
9-10 December 2004 (pp. 139-144). International Federation of Surveyors
(FIG), Copenhagen.
Zevenbergen, J., Frank, A. and Stubkjær, E. (2007). Modelling Real Property
Transactions. In Zevenbergen, J., Frank, A. and Stubkjær, E. (eds.) COST
Action G9 Real property transactions. Procedures, transaction costs and
models. IOS Press, Amsterdam. 2007, pp. 3-24.
Zweigert, K. and Kötz, H. (1998). Introduction to Comparative law. 3rd.
edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England. 1998.
Internet sources(All sources were accessed 2012-05-15.)
Paper 2 https://uni.uni-
hamburg.de/onTEAM/
grafik/1164287680/Paasch.pdf
European Land Information
System (EULIS)
www.eulis.eu
International
federation of Surveyors
(FIG)
www.fig.net
International Organization
for Standardization (ISO)
www.iso.org
33
Spivak, S. M. and Brenner, F. C. (2001). Standardization Essentials: Princi-
ples and Practice. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York. 2001.
UNECE (2004). Guidelines on Real Property Units and Identifiers. Working
Party on Land Administration (WPLA). United Nations Economic Commis-
sion for Europe (UNECE). ECE/HBP/135. 2004.
Ubink, J. M. (2008). In the Land of the Chiefs. Customary Law, Land con-
flicts, and the Role of the State in Peri-Urban Ghana. Leiden University
Press, the Netherlands. 2008.
Zevenbergen, J. (2002). Systems of Land Registration. Aspects and Effects.
Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. 2002.
Zevenbergen, J. (2004). Expanding the Legal/administrative Package of the
Cadastral Domain Model – from Grey to Yellow? In Proceedings of the
"Standardization in the Cadastral Domain" Workshop, Bamberg, Germany,
9-10 December 2004 (pp. 139-144). International Federation of Surveyors
(FIG), Copenhagen.
Zevenbergen, J., Frank, A. and Stubkjær, E. (2007). Modelling Real Property
Transactions. In Zevenbergen, J., Frank, A. and Stubkjær, E. (eds.) COST
Action G9 Real property transactions. Procedures, transaction costs and
models. IOS Press, Amsterdam. 2007, pp. 3-24.
Zweigert, K. and Kötz, H. (1998). Introduction to Comparative law. 3rd.
edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England. 1998.
Internet sources(All sources were accessed 2012-05-15.)
Paper 2 https://uni.uni-
hamburg.de/onTEAM/
grafik/1164287680/Paasch.pdf
European Land Information
System (EULIS)
www.eulis.eu
International
federation of Surveyors
(FIG)
www.fig.net
International Organization
for Standardization (ISO)
www.iso.org
34
Appendix 1
Definitions of the classes in the Legal Cadastral Domain Model.
The definitions are arranged according to as they appear in the model in fi-
gure 2, describing the beneficial right and public advantage classes, the Per-
son – Ownership – Land relation and the limiting right and public restriction
classes. The definitions are taken from paper 2, 4 and 6 in this thesis.
Class name Definition
Real property right classes beneficial to real property
ownership
Common Real property to land relation executed in land le-
gally attached to two or more real properties. Ow-
ners of the participating real properties execute co-
ownership rights in the land at issue
(Paper 4, p. 100).
Property to
property right
Right executed by the owner of real property in an-
other real property, due to his ownership
(Paper 4, p. 108).
Person to
property right
Right executed by a person to use, harvest the
fruits/material of, rent or lease the real property in
whole or in part, including the claim against a person
(Paper 4, p. 107).
Latent right Right not yet executed on a real property
(Paper 4, p. 102).
Monetary liability
A latent, financial security for payment
(Paper 4, p. 104).
Beneficial right Right beneficial for the use and enjoyment of real
property (Paper 4, p. 99).
34
Appendix 1
Definitions of the classes in the Legal Cadastral Domain Model.
The definitions are arranged according to as they appear in the model in fi-
gure 2, describing the beneficial right and public advantage classes, the Per-
son – Ownership – Land relation and the limiting right and public restriction
classes. The definitions are taken from paper 2, 4 and 6 in this thesis.
Class name Definition
Real property right classes beneficial to real property
ownership
Common Real property to land relation executed in land le-
gally attached to two or more real properties. Ow-
ners of the participating real properties execute co-
ownership rights in the land at issue
(Paper 4, p. 100).
Property to
property right
Right executed by the owner of real property in an-
other real property, due to his ownership
(Paper 4, p. 108).
Person to
property right
Right executed by a person to use, harvest the
fruits/material of, rent or lease the real property in
whole or in part, including the claim against a person
(Paper 4, p. 107).
Latent right Right not yet executed on a real property
(Paper 4, p. 102).
Monetary liability
A latent, financial security for payment
(Paper 4, p. 104).
Beneficial right Right beneficial for the use and enjoyment of real
property (Paper 4, p. 99).
35
Class name Definition
Public regulation classes beneficial to real property
ownership
Public general
advantage
Change in legislation beneficial for certain types of
real property at a general level, e.g. properties
within urban areas, properties being subject for in-
dustrial forestry or properties containing cultural
monuments. Beneficial to real property ownership
(Paper 6).
Public specific
advantage
Publicly granted permission to perform activities for
a limited and defined set of real properties, other-
wise regulated by a public specific obligation or
public specific prohibition, thereby restoring parts
of the owners use right (Paper 6).
Public advantage Publicly imposed action which is beneficial to ow-
nership and use of real property (Paper 2, p. 127).
Class name Definition
Person – Ownership right – Land classes
Person Human or legal person, state, municipality and other
private or governmental authority who owns real
property according to legislation (Paper 2, p. 123).
Ownership right Right to own real property according to legislation
(Paper 4, p. 105).
Land Part of Earth which is regulated through ownership.
Land is the surface of the Earth and the materials
beneath. Note: Water and the air above land might
also be considered land in some legislation (Paper 2,
p. 124).
35
Class name Definition
Public regulation classes beneficial to real property
ownership
Public general
advantage
Change in legislation beneficial for certain types of
real property at a general level, e.g. properties
within urban areas, properties being subject for in-
dustrial forestry or properties containing cultural
monuments. Beneficial to real property ownership
(Paper 6).
Public specific
advantage
Publicly granted permission to perform activities for
a limited and defined set of real properties, other-
wise regulated by a public specific obligation or
public specific prohibition, thereby restoring parts
of the owners use right (Paper 6).
Public advantage Publicly imposed action which is beneficial to ow-
nership and use of real property (Paper 2, p. 127).
Class name Definition
Person – Ownership right – Land classes
Person Human or legal person, state, municipality and other
private or governmental authority who owns real
property according to legislation (Paper 2, p. 123).
Ownership right Right to own real property according to legislation
(Paper 4, p. 105).
Land Part of Earth which is regulated through ownership.
Land is the surface of the Earth and the materials
beneath. Note: Water and the air above land might
also be considered land in some legislation (Paper 2,
p. 124).
36
Class name Definition
Real property right classes limiting to real property
ownership
Limiting right Right limiting the use and enjoyment of real pro-
perty (Paper 4, p. 103).
Common Real property to land relation executed in land le-
gally attached to two or more real properties. Ow-
ners of the participating real properties execute co-
ownership rights in the land at issue
(Paper 4, p. 100).
Property to
property right
Right executed by the owner of real property in
another real property, due to his ownership
(Paper 4, p. 108).
Person to
property right
Right executed by a person to use, harvest the
fruits/material of, rent or lease the real property in
whole or in part, including the claim against a person
(Paper 4, p. 107).
Latent right Right not yet executed on a real property
(Paper 4, p. 102).
Monetary
liability
A latent, financial security for payment
(Paper 4, p. 104).
36
Class name Definition
Real property right classes limiting to real property
ownership
Limiting right Right limiting the use and enjoyment of real pro-
perty (Paper 4, p. 103).
Common Real property to land relation executed in land le-
gally attached to two or more real properties. Ow-
ners of the participating real properties execute co-
ownership rights in the land at issue
(Paper 4, p. 100).
Property to
property right
Right executed by the owner of real property in
another real property, due to his ownership
(Paper 4, p. 108).
Person to
property right
Right executed by a person to use, harvest the
fruits/material of, rent or lease the real property in
whole or in part, including the claim against a person
(Paper 4, p. 107).
Latent right Right not yet executed on a real property
(Paper 4, p. 102).
Monetary
liability
A latent, financial security for payment
(Paper 4, p. 104).
37
Class name Definition
Public regulation classes limiting to real property ownership
Public restriction Publicly imposed restriction prohibiting or manda-
ting certain activities on real property. Limiting to
real property ownership (Paper 6).
Public general
restriction
Publicly imposed restriction prohibiting or manda-
ting certain activities on certain types of real pro-
perty at a general level, e.g. properties within urban
areas, properties being subject for industrial forestry
or properties containing cultural monuments. Limit-
ing to real property ownership (Paper 6).
Public specific
restriction
Publicly imposed restriction on doing certain activi-
ties or demanding certain obligations for a limited
and defined set of real properties, based on specific
legislation. Limiting to real property ownership
(Paper 6).
Public general
prohibition
Publicly imposed prohibition affecting certain types
of real property at a general level, e.g. properties
within urban areas, properties being subject for in-
dustrial forestry or properties containing cultural
monuments. Limiting to real property ownership
(Paper 6).
Public general
obligation
Publicly imposed restriction demanding certain
activities on certain types of real property at a ge-
neral level, e.g. properties within urban areas, pro-
perties being subject for industrial forestry or pro-
perties containing cultural monuments. Limiting to
real property ownership (Paper 6).
Public specific
prohibition
Publicly imposed restriction prohibiting certain
activities for a limited and defined set of real pro-
perties, not to be performed by the real property
owner. Limiting to real property ownership (Paper
6).
Public specific
obligation
Publicly imposed restriction demanding certain
activities from the real property owner, for a limited
and defined set of real properties, based on specific
legislation. Limiting to real property ownership
(Paper 6).
37
Class name Definition
Public regulation classes limiting to real property ownership
Public restriction Publicly imposed restriction prohibiting or manda-
ting certain activities on real property. Limiting to
real property ownership (Paper 6).
Public general
restriction
Publicly imposed restriction prohibiting or manda-
ting certain activities on certain types of real pro-
perty at a general level, e.g. properties within urban
areas, properties being subject for industrial forestry
or properties containing cultural monuments. Limit-
ing to real property ownership (Paper 6).
Public specific
restriction
Publicly imposed restriction on doing certain activi-
ties or demanding certain obligations for a limited
and defined set of real properties, based on specific
legislation. Limiting to real property ownership
(Paper 6).
Public general
prohibition
Publicly imposed prohibition affecting certain types
of real property at a general level, e.g. properties
within urban areas, properties being subject for in-
dustrial forestry or properties containing cultural
monuments. Limiting to real property ownership
(Paper 6).
Public general
obligation
Publicly imposed restriction demanding certain
activities on certain types of real property at a ge-
neral level, e.g. properties within urban areas, pro-
perties being subject for industrial forestry or pro-
perties containing cultural monuments. Limiting to
real property ownership (Paper 6).
Public specific
prohibition
Publicly imposed restriction prohibiting certain
activities for a limited and defined set of real pro-
perties, not to be performed by the real property
owner. Limiting to real property ownership (Paper
6).
Public specific
obligation
Publicly imposed restriction demanding certain
activities from the real property owner, for a limited
and defined set of real properties, based on specific
legislation. Limiting to real property ownership
(Paper 6).
