08/06/09 LOAIT 20091

Interaction

Models Group

Legal Taxonomy Syllabus 2.0Terminological and Ontological Annotation

of European DirectivesG. Ajani1, G. Boella2, L. Lesmo2, M. Martin2,

A. Mazzei2, D. Radicioni2, P. Rossi3 mazzei@di.unito.it

1 - Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche - Università di Torino 2 - Dipartimento di Informatica - Università di Torino

3 - Dipartimento di Studi per lʼImpresa e il Territorio, Università del Piemonte Orientale

08/06/09 LOAIT 20092

Interaction

Models Group

The EUD multilinguism problem The European Union Directives use the legal

languages of the Member States

This is problematic for the European Union Directive

drafting

translation

implementation

08/06/09 LOAIT 20093

Interaction

Models Group

The EUD multilinguism problem The European Union Directives use the legal

languages of the Member States

This is problematic for the European Union Directive

drafting

translation

implementation

➔ Lexical: Terminological Misalignment

➔ Semantic: Conceptual Misalignment

08/06/09 LOAIT 20094

Interaction

Models Group

Terminological Misalignment

English word: “reasonably” (Directive 99/44/EC, Art. 2)

Italian (translation of Directive): “ragionevolmente”

Italian (transposition law, D.lgs. 206/2005, Art. 129):

“con ordinaria diligenza”, (cf. Art. 1176 civil code)

Italian-EUD-lexicon ≠ Italian-NAT-lexicon

08/06/09 LOAIT 20095

Interaction

Models Group

Conceptual MisalignmentGerman term “Klar und verständlich” (Directive 97/7/EC, Art. 4, Art. 7)

1. the print or the writing of the information must be clear and legible (“Gestaltung der Information”)

2. the information must be intelligible by the consumer (“Formulierung der Information”)

3. the language of the information must be the national of consumer (“Sprache der Information”)

1. OK2. ?? Italian “Chiaro e comprensibile” 3. OK

1.??2.OKEnglish“ClearandComprehensible”3.??

EUD-concepts ≠ Italian-NAT-concepts

08/06/09 LOAIT 20096

Interaction

Models Group

Outline

Legal Taxonomy Syllabus

Legal Taxonomy Syllabus 2.0

Conclusions

08/06/09 LOAIT 20097

Interaction

Models Group

Outline

Legal Taxonomy Syllabus

Legal Taxonomy Syllabus 2.0

Conclusions

08/06/09 LOAIT 20098

Interaction

Models Group

LTS approach: 3 hypotheses1. Terms and concept must be distinguished by using

ontologies

2. Each national legislation (n lexicons) must refer to a distinct legal ontology and moreover to the European ontology too (n+1 ontologies)

3. Corresponding concepts at the EU level and at national level can be described by different terms in the same language

08/06/09 LOAIT 20099

Interaction

Models Group

1. HP: terms ≠ conceptsTerms and concepts must be distinguished by using ontologies

CancellationConsumer protectionTerminationWithdrawal

Con-1

purpose

is-ais-a

Con-2

Con-4Con-3

Terms

Concepts

An ontology is a formal and explicit

specification of a shared

conceptualization [Gruber, 96].

An ontology provides the terms to

describe the conceptualization of a

knowledge base [Berners-Lee, 99]

08/06/09 LOAIT 200910

Interaction

Models Group

2. HP: multi-ontology, multi-level

Italian ontology

Ita-124

Creditore

Ita-4

Spanish ontology

Prestamista

Spa-5

Spa-110

EU ontology

EU-25

National Level - European level

08/06/09 LOAIT 200911

Interaction

Models Group

3. HP: one word, distinct concepts

Italian ontology

Ita-124

Creditore

Ita-4

Spanish ontology

Prestamista

Spa-5

Spa-110

EU ontology

EU-25

National Level - European level

08/06/09 LOAIT 200912

Interaction

Models Group

LTS tool A friendly web interface designed for experts in

the legal field in order to search and to annotate

terms and concepts

08/06/09 LOAIT 200913

Interaction

Models Group

http://www.eulawtaxonomy.org

08/06/09 LOAIT 200914

Interaction

Models Group

Outline

Legal Taxonomy Syllabus

Legal Taxonomy Syllabus 2.0

Conclusions

08/06/09 LOAIT 200915

Interaction

Models Group

The LTS 2.0 New ontological relationships in order to manage

doctrinal interpretation (INTERPRETED_AS) and

time evolution (REPLACED_BY)

Facilities for concept annotation:

Legal document repository

Advanced Term Search

08/06/09 LOAIT 200916

Interaction

Models Group

Concept interpretation Direttiva 93/13/CEE, Art. 1

“[...] b) “consumatore”: qualsiasi persona fisica che, nei contratti

oggetto della presente direttiva, agisce per fini che non rientrano

nel quadro della sua attività professionale;[...]”

Direttiva 02/65/CE, Art. 2

“[...] d) "consumatore": qualunque persona fisica che, nei contratti a

distanza, agisca per fini che non rientrano nel quadro della propria

attività commerciale o professionale; [...]”

08/06/09 LOAIT 200917

Interaction

Models Group

Concept interpretation

For Italian law “attività commerciale” and “attività

professionale” are distinct

EU-50INTERPRETED_AS

EU-28EU-25

INTERPRETED_AS

Consumer

08/06/09 LOAIT 200918

Interaction

Models Group

Concept time evolution implicit and explicit normative change

non-valid (updated) concepts

08/06/09 LOAIT 200919

Interaction

Models Group

REPLACED_BY

REPLACED_BY is characterized by a date

Replacing concept inherits all the ontological

relationships of replaced concept

IS_A IS_A

REPLACED_BYDate: 23 September 2002

EU-38

EU-37 EU-50

Consumer

Final Consumer

08/06/09 LOAIT 200920

Interaction

Models Group

Legal Document Repository LTS 1.0 Just the document fragment

correpsonding to a concept: time consuming

process

LTS 2.0 The legal documents (Directives and

national laws) are collected into the system:

Annotation history

Advanced search to annotate term-concept

08/06/09 LOAIT 200921

Interaction

Models Group

Terms highlight

08/06/09 LOAIT 200922

Interaction

Models Group

Advanced term search Stemming

Function word

Inverted index: terms distribution

Cosine document similarity: to search new term-

concept

08/06/09 LOAIT 200923

Interaction

Models Group

Outline

Legal Taxonomy Syllabus

Legal Taxonomy Syllabus 2.0

Conclusions

08/06/09 LOAIT 200924

Interaction

Models Group

Conclusion Legal Taxonomy Syllabus: research methodology

and a pratical tool

LTS 2.0

Doctrinal interpretation (INTERPRETED_AS)

Time evolution (REPLACED_BY)

Legal document repository

Advanced Term Search

08/06/09 LOAIT 200925

Interaction

Models Group

Thanks for your attention.

08/06/09 LOAIT 200926

Interaction

Models Group

Other slides

08/06/09 LOAIT 200927

Interaction

Models Group

Multilinguism in European Union 1958

Languages: 4

Pages translated: 17.000

2007

Languages: 23

Pages translated: 1.700.000

All languages are equally authentic (Art. 314, CET)

Citizens have a right to address the official EU bodies in any

of the EU’s official languages and to receive a reply in that

language (Art. 21, CET)

08/06/09 LOAIT 200928

Interaction

Models Group

Consumer Protection

CancellationConsumer protectionTerminationWithdrawal

Eng-1

purpose

is-ais-a

Eng-2

Eng-4Eng-3

Conclusione del contratto Difesa del consumatoreDiritto di recessoRisoluzioneRecesso

concerns

purpose purpose

Ita-1 Ita-2

Ita-3 Ita-4

Ita-5 Ita-6

concerns

purpose

EU-2

EU-1

National European National

08/06/09 LOAIT 200929

Interaction

Models Group

http://www.eulawtaxonomy.org

08/06/09 LOAIT 200930

Interaction

Models Group

http://www.eulawtaxonomy.org

08/06/09 LOAIT 200931

Interaction

Models Group

http://www.eulawtaxonomy.org

08/06/09 LOAIT 200932

Interaction

Models Group

http://www.eulawtaxonomy.org

08/06/09 LOAIT 200933

Interaction

Models Group

Constraints on INTERPRETED_AS A concept has at most one inerpretation

An interpreting concept exists iff it interprets at

least one other concept

By default, searches do not show interpreted

umeaning

08/06/09 LOAIT 200934

Interaction

Models Group

Technical Features

Web application

PHP 5

PostgreSQL 8

Apache 2

Windows, Unix and Mac

Tested with several web browser

08/06/09 LOAIT 200935

Interaction

Models Group

How to speed-up annotation? Lexical annotation

Latent Semantic Analysis

Ontological annotation ? ? ? Some proposals ... patterns, clustering?

08/06/09 LOAIT 200936

Interaction

Models Group

Lightweight Ontology

08/06/09 LOAIT 200937

Interaction

Models Group

Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up approaches

Step 1: Define (choose) a foundational ontology (e.g. role concept)

Step 2: Design (and integrate) a core ontology (e.g. office concept)

Step 3: Design (and integrate) a domain ontology (e.g. head-of-state concept)

Step 4: Design (and integrate) an application ontology (e.g. president concept)