Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 245–283 | Cite as

Eunomos, a legal document and knowledge management system for the Web to provide relevant, reliable and up-to-date information on the law

  • Guido Boella
  • Luigi Di Caro
  • Llio Humphreys
  • Livio Robaldo
  • Piercarlo Rossi
  • Leendert van der Torre
Article

Abstract

This paper describes the Eunomos software, an advanced legal document and knowledge management system, based on legislative XML and ontologies. We describe the challenges of legal research in an increasingly complex, multi-level and multi-lingual world and how the Eunomos software helps users cut through the information overload to get the legal information they need in an organized and structured way and keep track of the state of the relevant law on any given topic. Using NLP tools to semi-automate the lower-skill tasks makes this ambitious project a realistic commercial prospect as it helps keep costs down while at the same time allowing greater coverage. We describe the core system from workflow and technical perspectives, and discuss applications of the system for various user groups.

Keywords

Legal document management Legal ontologies Classification Knowledge acquisition and concept representation on annotations and legal texts 

References

  1. Agnoloni T, Barrera MF, Sagri M, Tiscornia D, Venturi G (2009) When a framenet-style knowledge description meets an ontological characterization of fundamental legal concepts. In: AICOL 2009, pp 93–112Google Scholar
  2. Ajani G, Ebers M (eds) (2005) Uniform terminology for European contract law. Nomos, Baden BadenGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajani G, Lesmo L, Boella G, Mazzei A, Rossi P (2007) Terminological and ontological analysis of European directives: multilinguism in law. In: The 11th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, proceedings of the conference (ICAIL). ACM, pp 43–48Google Scholar
  4. Aluç G, Özsu MT, Daudjee K (2014) Workload matters: why rdf databases need a new design. Proc VLDB Endow 7(10):837–840. doi:10.14778/2732951.2732957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biagioli C, Francesconi E, Passerini A, Montemagni S, Soria C (2005) Automatic semantics extraction in law documents. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL). ACM, pp 133–140Google Scholar
  6. Bianchi M, Draoli M, Gambosi G, Pazienza M, Scarpato N, Stellato A (2009) ICT tools for the discovery of semantic relations in legal documents. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on ICT solutions for justice (ICT4Justice)Google Scholar
  7. Boella G, Di Caro L (2013) Extracting definitions and hypernym relations relying on syntactic dependencies and support vector machines. In: ACL (2), pp 532–537Google Scholar
  8. Boella G, van der Torre L (2007) The ontological properties of social roles in multi-agent systems: definitional dependence, powers and roles playing roles. Artif Intell Law 15(3):201–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boella G, di Caro L, Humphreys L (2011) Using classification to support legal knowledge engineers in the Eunomos legal document management system. In: Fifth international workshop on Juris-informatics (JURISIN)Google Scholar
  10. Boella G, di Caro L, Humphreys L, Robaldo L (2012a) Using legal ontology to improve classification in the Eunomos legal document and knowledge management system. In: Semantic processing of legal texts (SPLET) at lrec12Google Scholar
  11. Boella G, Humphreys L, van der Torre L (2012b) The role of roles in Eunomos, a legal document and knowledge management system for regulatory compliance. In: Proceedings of the information systems: a crossroads for organization, management, accounting and engineering (ITAIS) conferenceGoogle Scholar
  12. Boella G, Martin M, Rossi P, van der Torre L, Violato A (2012c) Eunomos, a legal document and knowledge management system for regulatory compliance. In: Proceedings of information systems: a crossroads for organization, management, accounting and engineering (ITAIS) conference. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. Boella G, Di Caro L, Robaldo L (2013) Semantic relation extraction from legislative text using generalized syntactic dependencies and support vector machines. In: Theory, practice, and applications of rules on the Web. Springer, Berlin, pp 218–225Google Scholar
  14. Boella G, Di Caro L, Ruggeri A, Robaldo L (2014) Learning from syntax generalizations for automatic semantic annotation. J Intell Inf Syst 43(2):231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boer A, Winkels R (2005) What’s in an interchange standard for legislative XML? I Quad 18:32–41Google Scholar
  16. Bornea MA, Dolby J, Kementsietsidis A, Srinivas K, Dantressangle P, Udrea O, Bhattacharjee B (2013) Building an efficient RDF store over a relational database. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 121–132. Retrieved from doi:10.1145/2463676.2463718
  17. Breaux TD (2009) Legal requirements acquisition for the specification of legally compliant information systems (unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  18. Breuker J, Valente A, Winkels R (1997) Legal ontologies: a functional view. In: Proceedings of the 1st legout workshop on legal ontologies, pp 23–36Google Scholar
  19. Cheng CP, Lau GT, Law KH, Pan J, Jones A (2008a) Regulation retrieval using industry specific taxonomies. Artif Intell Law 16:277–303Google Scholar
  20. Cheng CP, Pan J, Lau GT, Law KH, Jones A (2008b) Relating taxonomies with regulations. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on digital government research, pp 34–43Google Scholar
  21. Cherubini M, Tiscornia D (2010) An ontology-based model of procedural norms and regulated procedures (Tech. Rep. No. 1/2010). ITTIG-CNR, Florence, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  22. Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20(3):273–297MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. de Maat E, Krabben K, Winkels R (2010) Machine learning versus knowledge based classification of legal texts. In: Proceedings of the legal knowledge and information systems conference: Jurix 2010. IOS Press, pp 87–96. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1940559.1940573
  24. Fellbaum C (1998) WordNet: an electronic lexical database. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Fernandez-Barrera M, Casanovas P (2011) Towards the intelligent processing of non-expert generated content: mapping Web 2.0 data with ontologies in the domain of consumer mediation. In: Proceedings of the international conference on artificial intelligence and law workshop, applying human language technology to the law, pp 18–27Google Scholar
  26. Fillmore C, Collin F (2000) FrameNet: frame semantics meets the corpus (U. manuscript, Ed.)Google Scholar
  27. Gabbay D, Horty J, Parent X, van der Meyden R, van der Torre L (2013) Handbook of deontic logic and normative systems. College Publications, LondonMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Gangemi A, Guarino N, Masolo C, Oltramari A, Schneider L(2002) Sweetening ontologies with dolce. In: Proceedings of the EKAW 2002. Siguenza, SPGoogle Scholar
  29. Ghidini C, Rospocher M, Serafini L(2010) Moki: a wiki-based conceptual modeling tool. In: Proceedings of the EKAW2010 poster and demo track, vol 674, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  30. Greene J (2001) Feature subset selection using Thornton’s separability index and its applicability to a number of sparse proximity-based classifiers. In: Proceedings of the annual symposium of the pattern recognition association of South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  31. Griesi D, Pazienza MT, Stellato A (2007) Semantic turkey—a semantic book-marking tool (system description). In: 4th European semantic Web conference (ESWC 2007), vol 4519. Springer, Berlin, pp 779–788Google Scholar
  32. Hall M, Eibe F, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten IH (2009) The Weka data mining software: an update. In: SIGKDD exploration newsletter, vol 11, pp 10–18Google Scholar
  33. Hobbs J (1998) The logical notation: ontological promiscuity. In: Chapter 2 of discourse and inference. http://www.isi.edu/~hobbs/disinf-tc.html
  34. Joachims T (1998) Text categorization with support vector machines: learning with many relevant features. Mach Learn ECML–98:137–142Google Scholar
  35. Kralingen V (1997) A conceptual frame-based ontology for the law. In: Proceedings of the 1st legout workshop on legal ontologies, pp 15–22Google Scholar
  36. Lau G (2004) A comparative analysis framework for semi-structured documents, with applications to government regulations (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of StanfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Lesmo L (2009) The Turin University Parser at Evalita 2009. In: Proceedings of the EVALITA, vol 9Google Scholar
  38. Lesmo L, Mazzei A, Radicioni DP (2009) Extracting semantic annotations from legal texts. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM conference on hypertext and hypermedia. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 167–172Google Scholar
  39. Makinson D, van der Torre LWN (2000) Input/output logics. J Philos Logic 29(4):383–408MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. McCarty L (1989) A language for legal discourse: Basic features. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and lawGoogle Scholar
  41. Nayak A, Poriya A, Poojary D(2013 March). Article: type of NoSQL databases and its comparison with relational databases. Int J Appl Inf Syst 5(4):16–19. (Published by Foundation of Computer Science, New York, USA)Google Scholar
  42. Neumann T, Weikum G (2010) The RDF-3X engine for scalable management of RDF data. VLDB J 19(1):91–113. doi:10.1007/s00778-009-0165-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ounis I, Amati G, Plachouras V, He B, Macdonald C, Lioma C (2006) Terrier: a high performance and scalable information retrieval platform. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR’06 workshop on open source information retrieval (OSIR 2006)Google Scholar
  44. Palmirani M (2011) Legislative change management with akoma-ntoso. In: Sartor G, Palmirani M, Francesconi E, Biasiotti M (eds) Legislative XML for the semantic Web, vol 4, pp 101–130. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  45. Palmirani M, Brighi R (2002) Norma-system: a legal document system for managing consolidated acts. In: Proceedings of the database and expert systems applications conference, dexa, vol 2453. Springer, Berlin, pp 310–320Google Scholar
  46. Palmirani M, Ognibene T, Cervone L (2012) Legal rules, text, and ontologies over time. In: Proceedings of the RuleML 2012Google Scholar
  47. Peters W, Vossen P, Díez-Orzas P, Andriaens G (1998) Cross-linguistic alignment of wordnets with an inter-lingual-index. Comput Hum 32(2–3):221–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peters W, Sagri M, Tiscornia D (2007) The structuring of legal knowledge in lois. Artif Intell Law 15(2):117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Platt J (1999) Sequential minimal optimization: a fast algorithm for training support vector machines. Adv Kernel Methods Support Vector Learn 208:98112Google Scholar
  50. Robaldo L, Miltsakaki E (2014) Corpus-driven semantics of concession: Where do expectations come from?. Dialogue & Discourse 5(1):1–36Google Scholar
  51. Robaldo L, Humphreys L, Sun L, Cupi L, Santos C, Muthuri R (2016) Combining input/output logic and reification for representing real-world obligations. In: Post-proceedings of 9th international workshop on Juris-informatics (JURISIN 2015), lecture notes in artificial intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  52. Rossi P, Vogel C (2004) Terms and concepts; towards a syllabus for European Private Law. Eur Rev Priv Law 12(2):293–300Google Scholar
  53. Salton G, Buckley C (1988) Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Inf Process Manag 24(5):513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sartor G (2011) Access to legislation in the semantic Web. In: Biasiotti M, Faro S (eds) From information to knowledge—online access to legal information: methodologies, trends and perspectives. IOSGoogle Scholar
  55. Stamper R (1991) The role of semantics in legal expert systems and legal reasoning. Ratio Juris 4(2):219–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Visser P, Bench-Capon T (1998) A comparison of four ontologies for the design of legal knowledge systems. Artif Intell Law 6:27–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Boella
    • 1
    • 4
  • Luigi Di Caro
    • 1
    • 4
  • Llio Humphreys
    • 2
  • Livio Robaldo
    • 2
    • 4
  • Piercarlo Rossi
    • 3
    • 4
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TurinTurinItaly
  2. 2.Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and TrustUniversity of LuxembourgEsch-sur-AlzetteLuxembourg
  3. 3.Università del Piemonte OrientaleVercelliItaly
  4. 4.Nomotika s.r.l.TurinItaly

Personalised recommendations