Legislative Change Management with Akoma-Ntoso

  • Monica PalmiraniEmail author
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 4)


The dynamicity of the law enables legislative texts to adapt to changes in society, as well as to correct iniquities and to effectively set out rights and duties. In the Web 2.0 era, an overabundance of obsolete legal information can be disorienting, not only for the citizen but also for enterprises and for government agencies tasked with making enforceable decisions. The goal of legal-information systems, legal databanks, and recently the collections of legal documents on the Web is thus to provide pertinent and updated legal information to legal experts and citizens alike, this in a dynamic scenario and possibly with semantic annotation explaining outcomes. In this chapter we explain how Akoma Ntoso provides an exhaustive mechanism for managing the changes a legal system undergoes over time and in multiple scenarios. To this end, we start out by looking at the different kinds of changes involved and defining them. We analyse the components of change in depth and provide a classification for qualifying the provisions found in a legal text. Then we introduce some methods for managing the different types of change identified. And finally, we explain how such changes are managed in Akoma Ntoso.


Legal System Semantic Annotation Target Norm Text Fragment Modificatory Provision 
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.


  1. 1.
    Arnold-Moore, T., and C. Jane. 2000. Connected to the law: Tasmanian legislation using EnAct. Journal of Information, Law and Technology 2000(1).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnold-Moore, T. 1995. Automatically processing amendments to legislation. In ICAIL 1995, 297–306. College Park, Maryland, USA: ACM. ISBN 0-89791-758-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bacci, L., P. Spinosa, C. Marchetti, and R. Battistoni. 2009. Automatic mark-up of legislative documents and its application to parallel text generation. In Proceedings of LOAIT Workshop, 45–54.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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. Presented at Balisage: The Markup Conference 2010, Montréal, Canada, August 3–6, vol. 5. In Proceedings of Balisage: The Markup Conference 2010. Balisage Series on Markup Technologies.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bekiari, C., M. Doerr, and P. Le Boeuf. 2008. International Working Group on FRBR and CIDOC CRM Harmonization. FRBR object-oriented definition and mapping to FRBRER (v. 0.9 draft).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bing, J. 2003. The policies of legal information services: A perspective of three decades. Yulex. ISBN 82-7226-077-8, 35–57.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boer, A., R. Winkels, and Vitali, F. 2008. MetaLex XML and the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format. In Proceedings of Computable Models of the Law, Languages, Dialogues, Games, Ontologies, 21–41. Springer.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruce, T., and P.W. Martin. 1994. The legal information institute: What is it and why is it? Cornell Law Forum, 2–6.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Consolidation Interim report of the working group, European Forum of Official Gazettes, 5th meeting Madrid, 25th – 26th September, 2008.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Di Iorio, A., M. Schirinzi, F. Vitali, and C. Marchetti. 2009. A natural and multi-layered approach to detect changes in tree-based textual documents. In ICEIS 2009, 90–101. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing 24 Springer 2009. Milan, Italy. ISBN 978-3-642-01346-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Francesconi, E., S. Montemagni, W. Peters, and D. Tiscornia. 2010. Semantic processing of legal texts: Where the language of law meets the law of language. Springer.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Governatori, G., and A. Rotolo. 2010. Changing legal systems: Legal abrogations and annulments in defeasible logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL 18(1):157–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greenleaf, G. 2004. Jon Bing and the history of computerised legal research – Some missing links.’ In Et tilbakeblikk p fremtiden (“Looking back at the future”), eds. Olav Torvund and Lee Bygrave, 61–75. Oslo: Institutt for Rettsinformatikk.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maat, E. de, and R. Winkels. 2009. A next step towards automated modelling of sources of law. In Proceedings of ICAIL 2009, 31–39.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mazzei, A., D.P. Radicioni, and R. Brighi. 2009. NLP-based Extraction of Modificatory Provisions Semantics. In Proceedings of the International Conference on ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE and LAW, ICAIL09, 50–57. Barcelona, Spain: ACM.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Palmirani, M., and F. Benigni. 2007. Norma-system: A legal information system for managing time. In Proceedings of the V legislative XML workshop V legislative XML workshop, 14–16 Giugno, Vol. 1, 205–224. Firenze: European Press Academic Publishing (ITALY).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Palmirani, M., G. Contissa, and R. Rubino. 2009. Fill the gap in the legal knowledge modelling. RuleML 2009:305–314.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Palmirani, M. 2007. Classification of the modificatory provisions for the legislative consolidation: The case of Africa legislative traditions, 48. Nairobi: UNDESA (KENYA).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Palmirani, M., and L. Cervone. 2009. Legal change management with a native XML repository. In Proceeding of JURIX 2009, Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, ed. G. Governatori, Vol. 205, 146–155. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Palmirani, M. 2005. Time model in normative information systems. In The Proceeding of Workshop “The Role of the Legal Knowledge in the eGoverment”, ICAIL 2005, Proceedings of the Conference, June 6–11. Bologna, Italy: ACM. ISBN 1-59593-081-7Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van de Ven, S., Rinke Hoekstra, Radboud Winkels, Emile de Maat, and dm Kollar. 2008. MetaVex: Regulation drafting meets the semantic web. In Computable models of the law. Languages, dialogues, games, ontologies, eds. P. Casanovas, G. Sartor, N. Casellas, and R. Rubino, 42–55. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 4884. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schefbeck, G. 2009. Free access to legal and legislative information: The Austrian approach. In Law via the internet: Free access, quality of information, effectiveness of rights, eds. M. Ragona and G. Peruginelli, 207–218. Florence: European Press Academy Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spinosa, P., G. Giardiello, M. Cherubini, S. Marchi, G. Venturi, and S. Montemagni. 2009. NLP-based metadata extraction for legal text consolidation. ICAIL 2009, 40–49. Barcelona, Spain: ACM.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vitali, F., and F. Zeni. 2007. Towards a country-independent data format: The Akoma Ntoso experience. In Proceedings of the V Legislative XML Workshop, 67–86. Florence: European Press Academic Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Law CIRSFIDUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations