Populating legal ontologies using semantic role labeling

Abstract

This article seeks to address the problem of the ‘resource consumption bottleneck’ of creating legal semantic technologies manually. It describes a semantic role labeling based information extraction system to extract definitions and norms from legislation and represent them as structured norms in legal ontologies. The output is intended to help make laws more accessible, understandable, and searchable in a legal document management system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    www.xmleges.org.

  2. 2.

    http://www.eucases.eu.

  3. 3.

    https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-vocabularies.

  4. 4.

    Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.

  5. 5.

    In a pre-processing step, each ‘is’ has been converted into ‘become’ to obtain the best SRL results.

  6. 6.

    Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.

  7. 7.

    Directive 2004/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility and repealing Directive 89/336/EEC Text with EEA relevance.

  8. 8.

    Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.

  9. 9.

    Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.

  10. 10.

    Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (Text with EEA relevance).

  11. 11.

    Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.

  12. 12.

    Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.

  13. 13.

    Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.

  14. 14.

    Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.

  15. 15.

    Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.

  16. 16.

    Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.

  17. 17.

    Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.

  18. 18.

    Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.

  19. 19.

    Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.

  20. 20.

    Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.

  21. 21.

    Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.

  22. 22.

    F-measure is calculated using precision and recall decimal values to 17 decimal points.

  23. 23.

    Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.

  24. 24.

    F-measure is calculated using precision and recall decimal values to 17 decimal points.

References

  1. Ajani G, Ebers M (2005) Uniform terminology for European contract law, vol 1. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ajani G, Boella G, Di Caro L, Robaldo L, Humphreys L, Praduroux S, Rossi P, Violato A (2016) The european legal taxonomy syllabus: a multi-lingual, multi-level ontology framework to untangle the web of european legal terminology. Appl Ontol 11(4):325–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartolini R, Lenci A, Montemagni S, Pirrelli V, Soria C (2004) Automatic classification and analysis of provisions in italian legal texts: a case study. In: OTM confederated international conferences on the move to meaningful internet systems. Springer, pp 593–604

  4. Berland M, Charniak E (1999) Finding parts in very large corpora. In: Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 57–64

  5. Bertoldi A, de Oliveira Chishman RL (2011) The limits of using framenet frames to build a legal ontology. In: ONTOBRAS-MOST. Citeseer, pp 207–212

  6. Biagioli C, Francesconi E, Passerini A, Montemagni S, Soria C (2005) Automatic semantics extraction in law documents. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, ICAIL ’05

  7. Biemann C (2005) Ontology learning from text: a survey of methods. LDV Forum 20:75–93

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bird S (2006) Nltk: the natural language toolkit. In: Proceedings of the COLING/ACL on interactive presentation sessions. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 69–72

  9. Björkelund A, Hafdell L, Nugues P (2009) Multilingual semantic role labeling. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth conference on computational natural language learning: shared task. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 43–48

  10. Bobbitt P (2006) Constitutional interpretation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boella G, Humphreys L, Martin M, Rossi P, van der Torre L (2012) Eunomos, a legal document and knowledge management system to build legal services. In: AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems. Models and ethical challenges for legal systems, legal language and legal ontologies, argumentation and software agents. Springer, pp 131–146

  12. Boella G, Di Caro L, Rispoli D, Robaldo L (2013a) A system for classifying multi-label text into EuroVoc. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 239–240

  13. Boella G, Di Caro L, Robaldo L (2013b) Semantic relation extraction from legislative text using generalized syntactic dependencies and support vector machines. In: International workshop on rules and rule markup languages for the semantic web. Springer, pp 218–225

  14. Boella G, Tosatto SC, Ghanavati S, Hulstijn J, Humphreys L, Muthuri R, Rifaut A, van der Torre L (2014) Integrating LEGAL-URN and Eunomos: towards a comprehensive compliance management solution. In: AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems. Springer, pp 130–144

  15. Boella G, Di Caro L, Graziadei M, Cupi L, Salaroglio CE, Humphreys L, Konstantinov H, Marko K, Robaldo L, Ruffini C, Simov K, Stroetmann V, Violato A (2015) Linking legal open data: breaking the accessibility and language barrier in European legislation and case law. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp 171–175

  16. Boella G, Di Caro L, Humphreys L, Robaldo L, Rossi P, van der Torre L (2016) Eunomos, a legal document and knowledge management system for the web to provide relevant, reliable and up-to-date information on the law. Artif Intell Law 24(3):245–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brill E (1992) A simple rule-based part of speech tagger. In: Proceedings of the workshop on speech and natural language. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 112–116

  18. Buabuchachart A, Charness N, Metcalf K, Morgenstern L (2013) Automated methods for extracting and expanding lists in regulatory text. In: Proceedings of the first JURIX doctoral consortium and poster sessions in conjunction with the 26th international conference on legal knowledge and information systems, JURIX 2013, Bologna, 11–13 Dec 2013

  19. Cai Z, Yu E (2002) Addressing performance requirements using a goal and scenario-oriented approach. In: International conference on advanced information systems engineering. Springer, pp 706–710

  20. Ciaramita M, Attardi G, Dell’Orletta F, Surdeanu M (2008) Desrl: a linear-time semantic role labeling system. In: Proceedings of the twelfth conference on computational natural language learning. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 258–262

  21. Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20(3):273–297

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Cunningham H, Maynard D, Bontcheva K, Tablan V (2002) Gate: a framework and graphical development environment for robust NLP tools and applications. In: Proc. 40th anniversary meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL)

  23. Curran JR, Clark S, Bos J (2007) Linguistically motivated large-scale NLP with c&c and boxer. In: ACL 2007, proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, 23–30 June 2007, Prague

  24. de Maat E, Winkels R, van Engers T (2009) Making sense of legal texts. Form Linguist Law 212:225

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fillmore CJ (1968) The case for case

  26. Fillmore CJ (1976) Frame semantics and the nature of language. Ann N Y Acad Sci 280(1):20–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fillmore CJ, Ruppenhofer J, Baker CF (2004) Framenet and representing the link between semantic and syntactic relations. Front Linguist 1:19–59

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gao X, Singh MP (2014) Extracting normative relationships from business contracts. In: International conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, AAMAS ’14, Paris, 5–9 May 2014, pp 101–108

  29. Ghanavati S (2013) Legal-URN framework for legal compliance of business processes. Ph.D. thesis, UOttawa, Canada. http://hdl.handle.net/10393/24028

  30. Giuliano C, Lavelli A, Romano L (2006) Exploiting shallow linguistic information for relation extraction from biomedical literature. In: EACL, Citeseer, vol 18, pp 401–408

  31. Gliozzo AM, Giuliano C, Rinaldi R (2005) Instance pruning by filtering uninformative words: an information extraction case study. In: Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing. Springer, pp 498–509

  32. Governatori G, Olivieri F, Rotolo A, Scannapieco S (2013) Computing strong and weak permissions in defeasible logic. J Philos Logic 42(6):799–829

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Grabmair M, Ashley KD, Hwa R, Sweeney PM (2011) Toward extracting information from public health statutes using text classification machine learning. In: Legal knowledge and information systems—JURIX 2011: the twenty-fourth annual conference, University of Vienna, Austria, 14th–16th Dec 2011, pp 73–82

  34. Hajič J, Ciaramita M, Johansson R, Kawahara D, Martí MA, Màrquez L, Meyers A, Nivre J, Padó S, Štěpánek J, et al (2009) The conll-2009 shared task: syntactic and semantic dependencies in multiple languages. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth conference on computational natural language learning: shared task. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1–18

  35. Harris Z (1968) Mathematical structures of language. In: Interscience tracts in pure and applied mathematics

  36. Hearst MA (1992) Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In: Proceedings of the 14th conference on Computational linguistics—volume 2. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 539–545

  37. Hepp M (2007) Ontologies: state of the art, business potential, and grand challenges. In: Hepp M, Leenheer PD, de Moor A, Sure Y (eds) Ontology management: semantic web, semantic web services, and business applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hirst G (1992) Semantic interpretation and the resolution of ambiguity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hudson R (1984) A (1984) word grammar. Basil Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  40. ITU-T (2012) Recommendation Z.151 (10/12), User Requirements Notation (URN)—Language definition. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.151/en

  41. Johansson R, Nugues P (2008a) Dependency-based semantic role labeling of propbank. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 69–78

  42. Johansson R, Nugues P (2008b) The effect of syntactic representation on semantic role labeling. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on computational linguistics-volume 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 393–400

  43. Kaisser M, Webber B (2007) Question answering based on semantic roles. In: Proceedings of the workshop on deep linguistic processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 41–48

  44. Kingsbury P, Palmer M (2002) From treebank to propbank. In: LREC, Citeseer

  45. Klein M (2001) Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions. In: Workshop on ontologies and information sharing. IJCAI’01, Seattle

  46. Lenci A, Montemagni S, Pirrelli V, Venturi G (2009) Ontology learning from italian legal texts. In: Proceedings of the 2009 conference on law, ontologies and the semantic web: channelling the legal information flood. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 75–94

  47. Levin B (1993) English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. University of Chicago press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  48. Loos EE, Anderson S, Day D, Jordan P, Wingate J (2004) Glossary of linguistic terms, vol 29. SIL International

  49. Lyding V, Chiocchetti E, Sérasset G, Brunet-Manquat F (2006) The LexALP information system: term bank and corpus for multilingual legal terminology consolidated

  50. Malerba A (2017) Interpretive interactions among legal systems and argumentation schemes. PhD thesis, alma

  51. Marcus M, Kim G, Marcinkiewicz MA, MacIntyre R, Bies A, Ferguson M, Katz K, Schasberger B (1994) The Penn Treebank: annotating predicate argument structure. In: Proceedings of the workshop on human language technology. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 114–119

  52. Màrquez L (2009) Semantic role labeling: past, present and future. In: Tutorial abstracts of ACL-IJCNLP 2009. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 3

  53. Màrquez L, Carreras X, Litkowski KC, Stevenson S (2008) Semantic role labeling: an introduction to the special issue. Comput Linguist 34(2):145–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Martin JH, Jurafsky D (2016) Semantic role labeling. Draft of June 26, 2015. In: Speech and language processing

  55. Maxwell KT, Oberlander J, Lavrenko V (2009) Evaluation of semantic events for legal case retrieval. In: Proceedings of the WSDM, vol 9, pp 09–09

  56. Mel’cuk IA et al (1988) Dependency syntax: theory and practice. SUNY press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mihalcea R, Moldovan D (2000) Semantic indexing using wordnet senses. In: Proceedings of the ACL-2000 workshop on recent advances in natural language processing and information retrieval: held in conjunction with the 38th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics—volume 11. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 35–45

  58. Miller GA, Beckwith R, Fellbaum C, Gross D, Miller KJ (1990) Introduction to wordnet: an on-line lexical database. Int J Lexicogr 3(4):235–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Moldovan DI, Rus V (2001) Logic form transformation of wordnet and its applicability to question answering. In: Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 402–409

  60. Palmirani M, Ceci M, Radicioni D, Mazzei A (2011) Framenet model of the suspension of norms. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp 189–193

  61. Palmirani M, Martoni M, Rossi A, Bartolini C, Robaldo L (2018) Legal ontology for modelling GDPR concepts and norms. In: JURIX, pp 91–100

  62. Payne TE (1997) Describing morphosyntax: a guide for field linguists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  63. Rabinia A, Ghanavati S, Humphreys L, Hahmann T (2020) A methodology for the formal legal GRL framework: a research preview. In: Proceedings of the working conference on requirements engineering: foundation for software quality, to appear

  64. Robaldo L, Sun X (2017) Reified input/output logic: combining input/output logic and reification to represent norms coming from existing legislation. J Logic Comput 27(8):2471–2503

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Robaldo L, Caselli T, Grella M (2011) Rule-based creation of TimeML documents from dependency trees. In: Congress of the Italian association for artificial intelligence. Springer, pp 389–394

  66. Robaldo L, Bartolini C, Palmirani M, Rossi A, Martoni M, Lenzini G (2019) Formalizing GDPR provisions in reified I/O logic: the DAPRECO knowledge base. J Logic Lang Inf 1–49

  67. Rossi P, Vogel C (2004) Terms and concepts; towards a syllabus for european private law. Eur Rev Private Law (ERPL) 12(2):293–300

    Google Scholar 

  68. Rus V (2002) Logic form for wordnet glosses and applications. PhD thesis, Phd thesis, Southern Methodist University

  69. 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. IOS

  70. Sérasset G (1995) Interlingual lexical organisation for multilingual lexical databases in nadia. arXiv preprint cmp-lg/9502001

  71. Siena A (2010) Engineering law-compliant requirements: the nòmos framework. PhD thesis, University of Trento

  72. Stevenson M, Greenwood MA (2005) A semantic approach to IE pattern induction. In: Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 379–386

  73. Surdeanu M, Harabagiu S, Williams J, Aarseth P (2003) Using predicate-argument structures for information extraction. In: Proceedings of the 41st annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics—volume 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 8–15

  74. Surdeanu M, Johansson R, Meyers A, Màrquez L, Nivre J (2008) The CoNLL-2008 shared task on joint parsing of syntactic and semantic dependencies. In: Proceedings of the twelfth conference on computational natural language learning. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 159–177

  75. Szpektor I, Tanev H, Dagan I, Coppola B et al (2004) Scaling web-based acquisition of entailment relations. EMNLP 4:41–48

    Google Scholar 

  76. Venturi G, Lenci A, Montemagni S, Vecchi EM, Sagri MT, Tiscornia D, Agnoloni T (2009) Towards a framenet resource for the legal domain. LOAIT pp 67–76

  77. Viet LD, Sinh VT, Minh NL, Satoh K (2017) Convamr: abstract meaning representation parsing for legal document. arXiv preprint arXiv:171106141

  78. Walter S (2009) Definition extraction from court decisions using computational linguistic technology. Form Linguist Law 212:183

    Google Scholar 

  79. Walton D, Sartor G, Macagno F (2016) An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation. Artif Intell Law 24(1):51–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Wenar L (2011) Rights. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/. Accessed 15 July 2011

  81. Wyner A (2012) Problems and prospects in the automatic semantic analysis of legal texts. In: SPLET workshop at LREC

  82. Wyner A, Peters W (2011) On rule extraction from regulations. In: JURIX, Citeseer, vol 11, pp 113–122

  83. Wyner A, Peters W (2012) Semantic annotations for legal text processing using gate teamware. In: Semantic processing of legal texts (SPLeT-2012), p 34

  84. Yangarber R, Grishman R, Tapanainen P, Huttunen S (2000) Automatic acquisition of domain knowledge for information extraction. In: Proceedings of the 18th conference on computational linguistics—volume 2. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 940–946

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Llio Humphreys.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Humphreys, L., Boella, G., van der Torre, L. et al. Populating legal ontologies using semantic role labeling. Artif Intell Law (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09271-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Classification
  • Information extraction
  • Ontology
  • Normative reasoning
  • Semantic role labeling
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Law