Advertisement

ContractFrames: Bridging the Gap Between Natural Language and Logics in Contract Law

  • María Navas-LoroEmail author
  • Ken Satoh
  • Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11717)

Abstract

This paper introduces ContractFrames, a framework able to translate natural language texts referring to the different events related to the status of a purchase contract to logic clauses from a legal reasoning system called PROLEG. Diverse frames and rules have been developed for the extraction and storage of this event-centric information before its conversion to logic clauses. Our framework uses natural language tools and rules to extract relevant information, store it in the form of frames, and return the logic clauses of the input text. Also an ontology, called the Contract Workflow Ontology, has been developed to represent all the relevant information of the events related to a contract. The framework has been tested in a synthetic dataset, and showed promising results.

Keywords

Legal NLP PROLEG Contract life-cycle Legal ontology 

References

  1. 1.
    Araujo, D.A., et al.: Automatic information extraction from texts with inference and linguistic knowledge acquisition rules. In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technologies, vol. 3, pp. 151–154. IEEE Computer Society (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, C., et al.: The Berkeley FrameNet project. In: Proceedings of the 17th International ACL, vol. 1, pp. 86–90. Association for Computational Linguistics (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biagioli, C., et al.: Automatic semantics extraction in law documents. In: Proceedings of the 10th ICAIL, pp. 133–140. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang, A.X., Manning, C.D.: TokensRegex: defining cascaded regular expressions over tokens. Technical report CSTR 2014-02, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cunningham, H., et al.: Getting more out of biomedical documents with GATE’s full lifecycle open source text analytics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9(2), 1–16 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daskalopulu, A., et al.: Evidence-based electronic contract performance monitoring. Group Decis. Negot. 11(6), 469–485 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dell’Orletta, F., et al.: The SPLeT-2012 shared task on dependency parsing of legal texts. In: Semantic Processing of Legal Texts (SPLeT-2012) Workshop Programme, p. 42 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dragoni, M., et al.: Combining NLP approaches for rule extraction from legal documents. In: 1st Workshop on MIning and REasoning with Legal Texts (MIREL 2016) (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Francesconi, E.: Legal rules learning based on a semantic model for legislation. In: Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on the Semantic Processing of Legal Texts (SPLeT-2010), Malta, May 2010, p. 46 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z.: A formal analysis of a business contract language. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 15(04), 659–685 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grosof, B.N.: Representing E-commerce rules via situated courteous logic programs in RuleML. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 3(1), 2–20 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoekstra, R., Breuker, J., Di Bello, M., Boer, A., et al.: The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts. LOAIT 321, 43–63 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kabilan, V.: Contract workflow model patterns using BPMN. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on EMMSAD (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kimura, Y., Nakamura, M., Shimazu, A.: Treatment of legal sentences including itemized and referential expressions – towards translation into logical forms. In: Hattori, H., Kawamura, T., Idé, T., Yokoo, M., Murakami, Y. (eds.) JSAI 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5447, pp. 242–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00609-8_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiyavitskaya, N., et al.: Automating the extraction of rights and obligations for regulatory compliance. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 154–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87877-3_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leff, L., Meyer, P.: eContracts 1.0 committee specification. OASIS LegalXML Technical report (2007). http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxmlecontracts
  17. 17.
    Manning, C.D., et al.: The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the ACL 2014, System Demonstrations, pp. 55–60 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miller, G.A.: WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun. ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Minsky, M.: A framework for representing knowledge (1975)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Molina-Jimenez, C., et al.: Contract representation for run-time monitoring and enforcement. In: IEEE International Conference on E-commerce, pp. 103–110 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moulin, B., Rousseau, D.: Automated knowledge acquisition from regulatory texts. IEEE Expert 7(5), 27–35 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1109/64.163670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nakamura, M., Nobuoka, S., Shimazu, A.: Towards translation of legal sentences into logical forms. In: Satoh, K., Inokuchi, A., Nagao, K., Kawamura, T. (eds.) JSAI 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4914, pp. 349–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78197-4_33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Navas-Loro, M., Santos, C.: Events in the legal domain: first impressions. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Technologies for Regulatory Compliance (TeReCom) at the 31st International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX) (2018)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prisacariu, C., Schneider, G.: A dynamic deontic logic for complex contracts. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 81(4), 458–490 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rodríguez-Doncel, V., et al.: Overview of the MPEG-21 media contract ontology. Semantic Web 7(3), 311–332 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Satoh, K., et al.: PROLEG: an implementation of the presupposed ultimate fact theory of Japanese civil code by PROLOG technology. In: Onada, T., Bekki, D., McCready, E. (eds.) JSAI-isAI 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6797, pp. 153–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25655-4_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schuler, K.K.: Verbnet: A broad-coverage, comprehensive verb lexicon (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wyner, A.Z., Peters, W.: On rule extraction from regulations. In: JURIX. 11, 113–122 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ontology Engineering GroupUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Principles of Informatics Research DivisionNational Institute of InformaticsTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations