Advertisement

Markup Semantics and Quality Evaluation of Legal Drafting

  • Silvio Peroni
Chapter
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 15)

Abstract

In this chapter I introduce the issue of markup semantics, i.e., formal definitions of meanings of markup elements and textual ranges, in addition to the syntactical structure of a markup document. In particular, I propose an extension of EARMARK, the OWL-based markup metalanguage introduced in the previous chapter, based on a model, the Linguistic Act Ontology, to consider more general and comprehensive theories based on shared principles and well-grounded studies on linguistics, semiology and communication theory. After a detailed introduction to Akoma Ntoso, i.e., the primarily language I use in some of markup fragments of this chapter, I show the advantages of using LA together with EARMARK (i.e., LA-EARMARK) in three different use cases: to query documents that share the same implicit semantics; to assess the quality of legal drafting; and, finally, to provide a mapping between Akoma Ntoso and CEN MetaLex.

Keywords

Legal Document Legal Text Information Entity Legal Resource Element Speech 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barabucci, G., L. Cervone, M. Palmirani, S. Peroni, and F. Vitali. 2009. Multi-layer markup and ontological structures in Akoma Ntoso. In Proceeding of the international workshop on AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems II (AICOL-II), lecture notes in computer science 6237 vols, ed. P. Casanovas, U. Pagallo, G. Sartor, and G. Ajani, 133–149. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-164.4-5_9.Google Scholar
  2. Barabucci, G., L. Cervone, A. Di Iorio, M. Palmirani, S. Peroni, and F. Vitali. 2010. Managing semantics in XML vocabularies: An experience in the legal and legislative domain. Proceedings of Balisage: The markup conference 2009. Rockville: Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol5/html/Barabucci01/BalisageVol5-Barabucci01.html. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  3. Bauman, S. 2010. The 4 “Levels” of XML rectitude. Presented as poster in Balisage: The markup conference 2010. August 3–6, 2010, Montréal, Canada. http://bauman.zapto.org/˜syd/temp/XML_rectitude.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  4. Berglund, A., S. Boag, D. Chamberlin, M. F. Fernández, M. Kay, J. Robie, and J. Siméon. 2011. XML Path language (XPath) 2.0. 2nd ed. W3C recommendation 14 December 2010 (Link errors corrected 3 January 2011). World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  5. Boer, A., R. Winkels, and F. Vitali. 2007. Proposed XML standards for law: MetaLex and LKIF. In Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2007), ed. A. R. Lodder and L. Mommers, 19–28. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boer, A., R. Winkels, and F. Vitali. 2008. MetaLex XML and the legal knowledge interchange format. In Computable models of the law, languages, dialogues, games, ontologies, lecture notes in computer science 4884, ed. P. Casanovas, G. Sartor, N. Casellas, and R. Rubino, 21–41. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-84.69-9_2.Google Scholar
  7. Bray, T., D. Hollander, A. Layman, R. Tobin, and H. S. Thompson. 2009. Namespaces in XML 1.0. 3rd ed. W3C recommendation 8 December 2009. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  8. Breuker, J., A. Boer, R. Hoekstra, and K. van den Berg. 2006. Developing content for LKIF: Ontologies and frameworks for legal reasoning. In Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2006), ed. T. M. van Engers, 169–174. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  9. Connolly, D. 2007. Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages (GRDDL). W3C recommendation 11 September 2007. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  10. Dattolo, A., A. Di Iorio, S. Duca, A. A. Feliziani, and F. Vitali. 2007. Structural patterns for descriptive documents. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Web Engineering 2007 (ICWE 2007), lecture notes in computer science 4607, ed. L. Baresi, P. Fraternali, and G. Houben, 421–426. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-734.7-7_35.Google Scholar
  11. De Oliveira Lima, A., M. Palmirani, and F. Vitali. 2008. Moving in the time: An ontology for identifying legal resources. In Computable models of the law, languages, dialogues, games, ontologies, lecture notes in computer science 4884, 71–85), ed. P. Casanovas, G. Sartor, N. Casellas, and R. Rubino. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-84.69-9_5.Google Scholar
  12. DeRose, S. J., and D. G. Durand. 1994. Making hypermedia work: a user’s guide to HyTime. Boston: Kluwer Academic. (ISBN 9780792394327).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Di Iorio, A. S., Peroni, F. Poggi, and F. Vitali. 2012. A first approach to the automatic recognition of structural patterns in XML documents. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM symposium on Document Engineering (DocEng 2012), 85–94. New York: ACM. doi:10.1144.2361354.2361374.Google Scholar
  14. Garlik, S. H., and A. Seaborne. 2013. SPARQL 1.1 Query language. W3C recommendation 21 March 2013. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  15. Guthrie, L., J. Pustejovsky, Y. Wilks, and B. M. Slator. 1996. The role of lexicons in natural language processing. Communications of the ACM 39 (1): 63–72. doi:10.1144.234173.234204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. 2009. Functional requirements for bibliographic records final report. International federation of library associations and institutions. http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  17. Jakobson, R. 1960. Closing statements: Linguistics and poetics. In Style in language, ed. T. A. Sebeok, 351–377. Cambridge: The MIT Press. (ISBN 0262690101).Google Scholar
  18. Lupo, C., F. Vitali, E. Francesconi, M. Palmirani, R. Winkels, E. de Maat, A. Boer, and P. Mascellani. 2007. General XML format(s) for legal sources. Deliverable 3.1 of the European project for standardised transparent representation in order to extend legal accessibility (ESTRELLA). EU IST-2004-027655. http://www.estrellaproject.org/doc/D3.1-General-XML-formats-For-Legal-Sources.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  19. Palmirani, M., and F. Benigni (2007). Norma-system: A legal information system for managing time. In Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2007), ed. A. R. Lodder and L. Mommers, 205–224. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  20. Palmirani, M., and L. Cervone. 2009. Legal change management with a native XML repository. In Proceedings of the 2009 conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2009), ed. G. Governatori, 146–155. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  21. Palmirani, M., G. Contissa, and R. Rubino. 2009. Fill the gap in the legal knowledge modelling. In Proceedings of the 2009 international symposium on rule interchange and applications (RuleML 2009), lecture notes on computer science 4.58, ed. G. Governatori, J. Hall, and A. Paschke, 305–314. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04985-9_28.Google Scholar
  22. Peirce, C. S. 1958. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, ed. C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (ISBN: 0674138001).Google Scholar
  23. Picca, D., A. Gliozzo, and A. Gangemi. 2008. LMM: an OWL-DL MetaModel to represent heterogeneous lexical knowledge. Proceedings of the 6th Language Resource and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2008). Luxembourg: European Language Resources Association. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/pdf/608_paper.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  24. Presutti, V., and A. Gangemi. 2008. Content ontology design patterns as practical building blocks for web ontologies. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on conceptual modeling (ER 2008), lecture notes in computer science 4.31, ed. Q. Li, S. Spaccapietra, E. S. K. Yu, and A. Olivé, 128–141. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87877-3_11.Google Scholar
  25. Renear, A., D. Dubin, and C. M. Sperberg-McQueen. 2002. Towards a semantics for XML markup. Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on Document Engineering (DocEng 2002): 119–126. New York: ACM. doi:10.1144.584.58.4.4.81.Google Scholar
  26. Saussure, F. 2006. Writings in general linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. (ISBN 019926144X).Google Scholar
  27. Searle, J. 1970. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (ISBN 04.109626X).Google Scholar
  28. Text Encoding Initiative Consortium. 2013. TEI P5: Guidelines for electronic text encoding and interchange. Charlottesville: TEI Consortium. http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines/P5. Accessed 30 July 2013.Google Scholar
  29. Walsh, N. 2010. DocBook 5: The definitive guide. Sebastopol: O’Really Media. Version 1.0.3. (ISBN: 04.6804.29).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations