1.
Introduction ^
2.
Legislation and Semantics ^
- the bottom level, represented by atomic components (simple and complex terms)
- the middle level, represented by aggregations of such components (sentences or partitions)
- the top level, represented by the whole text.
- the bottom level can be defined as the level of domain concepts, describing entities which are regulated by the including act
- the middle level, representing aggregations of such concepts, describes the relations between domain concepts in terms of rules
- the top level describes the matter of interest for the act.
- it allows lawyers to think in terms of articles or paragraphs, considering that referencing is at the level of articles or paragraphs
- it allows for making efficient use of database memory
- it allows for efficiently generating time consolidated versions of legislative texts
- it allows to provide detailed qualification of specific portions of legal texts, thus distinguishing between all three semiotic dimensions: syntax (e.g. letters, words), semantics (e.g. content, based on syntax) and pragmatics (e.g. legal validity) of a single fragment or speech act.
3.
Advanced applications based on legistic theories ^
4.
Ex-Post vs Ex-Ante approaches to manage semantics in legislation ^
- the «ex-post» approach, related to either a post-processing procedure which identifies and annotates («document mark-up» in the XML jargon) the existing document structure, usually by natural language processing procedures, or a post-analysis of legislation provided by advanced search and retrieval facilities based on the semantic annotation of legislative text fragments in terms of metadata and matadata values (concepts) defined in an ontology;
- the «ex-ante» approach, related to the use of predefined templates to support legislation drafting, so that the document organization (in terms of syntactic and semantic annotation) is given during the drafting activity and as a result of an automated legislative workflow.
- in the traditional (ex-post) legislative drafting approach the formal structure of a document may not be the best one to express its semantics, since a semantic annotation is usually carried out at the end of the drafting activity, when legislative text structure and wording are already defined;
- in the model-driven (ex-ante) legislative drafting approach, the traditional drafting process is inverted: firstly the semantics of a legislative text in terms of provision instances is expressed, then it is organized (by grouping semantically correlated provisions), finally the formal structure of the document is created considering that each single provisions is to be represented by a paragraph, and partitions wording (manually or automatically) can be implemented.
5.
Conclusions ^
6.
Literatur ^
Searle, John, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press (1969).
Biagioli, Carlo, «Towards a legal rules functional micro-ontology», in Proceedings of workshop LEGONT ’97 (1997).
Rawls, John, Two concepts of rule, Philosophical Review, vol. 64, pp. 3-31 (1955).
Biagioli, Carlo, Cappelli, Amedeo, Francesconi, Enrico and Turchi, Fabrizio, «Law making environment: perspectives, European Press Academic Publishing (EPAP) », in Proceedings of the V Legislative XML Workshop, pp. 267–281 (2007).
Lachmayer, Friedrich and Hoffmann, Harald, «From legal categories towards legal ontologies», in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques, pp. 63–69 (2005).
Lachmayer, Friedrich and Hoffmann, Harald, «Provisions as legislative elements: Annotations to Biagioli’s Theory», in Proceedings of the V Legislative XML Workshop, pp. 137–148, European Press Academic Publishing (EPAP) (2007).
Biagioli, Carlo and Turchi, Fabrizio, «Model and ontology based conceptual searching in legislative xml collections», in Proceedings of the Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques, pp. 83–89 (2005).
Francesconi, Enrico, «Axioms on a Semantic Model for Legislation for Accessing and Reasoning over Normative Provisions», 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, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 7639, pp. 147-161, Springer (2012).
Schweighofer, Erich and Liebwald, Doris, «Advanced Lexical Ontologies and Hybrid Knowledge Based Systems: First Steps to a Dynamic Legal Electronic Commentary», in Proceedings of the Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (2005).
Hoekstra, Rinke, Breuker, Joost, di Bello, Marcello and Boer, Alexander, «LKIF core: Principled ontology development for the legal domain», in Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web, pp. 21-52 (2009).
Enrico Francesconi, Institute of Legal Information Theory and Techniques, National Research Council of Italy.