<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>A linguistic-ontological support for multilingual legislative drafting: the DALOS Project</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Enrico Francesconi</string-name>
          <email>francesconi@ittig.cnr.it</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Pierluigi Spinosa</string-name>
          <email>spinosa@ittig.cnr.it</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Daniela Tiscornia</string-name>
          <email>tiscornia@ittig.cnr.it</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Institute of Legal Information Theory and Techniques, Italian National Research Council (ITTIG-CNR)</institution>
          ,
          <country country="IT">Italy</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>103</fpage>
      <lpage>111</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Coherence and alignment of the legislative language highly contribute to the quality of legislative processes, to the clarity of legislative texts and to their accessibility. DALOS aims at ensuring that legal drafters and decision-makers have control over the multilingual language of European legislation, and over the linguistic and conceptual issues involved in its transposition at national levels. The project will contribute to this goal by providing law-makers with linguistic and knowledge management tools to support the legislative drafting activity.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Legislative drafting</kwd>
        <kwd>multiligualism</kwd>
        <kwd>domain ontology</kwd>
        <kwd>lexical taxonomy</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. Introduction</title>
      <p>Coherence, interoperability and harmonization in the legislative
knowledge of, and control over, the legal lexicon is a precondition for
improving the quality of legislative language and for facilitating access to
legislation by legal experts and citizens. In a multilingual environment,
and in particular, in EU regulations, only the awareness of the
subtleties of legal lexicon, in the different languages, can enable drafters to
maintain coherence among the different linguistic version of the same
text. This is as much important for the EU Member State legal orders,
strongly influenced by the obligation to implement EU directives.</p>
      <p>To face this problem recently the DALOS1 project has been launched
within the “eParticipation” framework, the EU Commission initiative
aimed at promoting the development and use of Information and
Communication Technologies in the legislative decision-making processes,
with the aim to foster the quality of the legislative production, to
enhance accessibility and alignment of legislation at European level, as
well as to promote awareness and democratic participation of citizens
to the legislative process.</p>
      <p>In particular DALOS aims at ensuring that legal drafters and
decisionmakers have control over the legal language at national and European
level, by providing law-makers with linguistic and knowledge
management tools to be used in the legislative processes, in particular within
the phase of legislative drafting.</p>
      <p>Nowadays the key approach for dealing with lexical complexity is
the ontological one, by which we mean a characterisation (understood
both by people and processed by machines) of the conceptual meaning
of the lexical units and of their connection with other terms. On the
basis of an ontological characterisation of legal language DALOS wants
to provide law-makers with linguistic and knowledge management tools
to support legislative drafting in a multilingual environment.</p>
      <p>In this paper an overview of the DALOS project is given. In
particular in Section 2 the complexity of the multilingual legal scenario
is addressed; in Section 3 the characteristic of the DALOS
linguisticontological approach is discussed; in Section 4 the specification of the
DALOS Knowledge Organization System (KOS) is presented; in Section
5 the methodologies to implement the DALOS ontological-linguistic
resource are shown; finally in Section 6some conclusions are reported.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2. Interfacing multilingual legal terminologies</title>
      <p>In legal language every term collection belonging to a language system,
and any vocabulary originated by a law system, is an autonomous
vocabulary resource and should be mapped through relationships of
equivalence with the others. Based on the assumption that in a legal
domain one cannot transfer the conceptual structure from one legal
system to another, it is obvious that the best approach consists in
developing parallel alignment with the same methodology and the same
conceptual model. Different methods may be applied, depending on the
characteristic of the domain, the data structure and on the result to
achieve.</p>
      <p>As regards the data structure, the first consideration is that
unstructured list of terms (as for instance traditional flat terminologies) cannot
be mapped in a consistent way, but only connected by a one-to-one
correspondence among terms, which is an invalid approach for a
context dependent technical terminology, such as law vocabulary. Among
structured data different degrees of formalization can be distinguished:
− controlled vocabularies (such as thesauri, classification trees,
directories, key-words lists): terms are organized in taxonomic trees,
linked by generic associative relations, and concepts are implicitly
expressed by lists of preferred and variant terms
(descriptors/nondescriptors);
− semantic lexicons, also called computational lexicons or lightweight
ontologies are based on commonly accepted semantic definitions
and on a limited formal modeling;
− foundational, core, and domain ontologies are formal models
(logical theories) of a conceptualization of a given domain, often based
on axiomatic definitions.</p>
      <p>The integration of lexical resources (heterogeneous because
belonging to different law systems, or expressed in different languages, or
pertaining to different domains) leads to different final results depending
on the desired results:
− generate a single resources covering both (merging);
− compare and define correspondences and differences (mapping);
− combine different levels of knowledge representation, basically
interfacing lexical resources and ontologies.</p>
      <p>
        Of the three strategies, the methodological approach for DALOS
requires the definition of mapping procedures among semantic lexicons,
driven by the reference to an ontological level where the basic entities
which populate the legal domain are described. In the next section the
semantic structure of the lexical component is outlined.
2.1. A legal semantic lexicon: the LOIS database
Semantic lexicons are a means for content management which can
provide a rich semantic repository. Compared to formal ontologies,
semantic lexicons are lightweight ontologies as they are based on a weak
abstraction model, with limited formal modeling, since constraints over
relations are based on the grammatical distinctions of language (noun,
verbs, adjectives, adverbs), for instance the agent-role relation holds
between a noun (agent) and a verb or event denoting nouns (action)
(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">(Castagnoli et al., 2006)</xref>
        ) In the legal field, one of the wider
semantic lexicons currently available is the LOIS database2 composed by
about 35.000 concepts in five European languages (English, German,
Portuguese, Czech, and Italian, linked by English).
      </p>
      <p>In LOIS a concept is expressed by a synset, the atomic unit of
the semantic net. A synset is a set of one or more uninflected word
forms (lemmas) with the same part-of-speech (noun, verb, adjective,
2 created within the European project LOIS (Legal Ontologies for Knowledge
Sharing, EDC 22161, 2003-2006)
and adverb) that can be interchanged in a certain context. For example
action, trial, proceedings, law suit form a noun synset because they
can be used to refer to the same concept. More precisely each synset
is a set of wordsenses, since polysemous terms are distinct in different
wordsenses. A synset is often further described by a gloss, explaining
the meaning of the concept. English glosses drive cross-lingual linking.</p>
      <p>In monolingual lexicons terms are linked by lexical relations:
synonymy (included in the notion of synset), near-synonym, antonym,
derivation. Synsets are linked by semantic relations of which the most
important are hypernymy/hyponymy (between specific and more
general concepts), meronymy (between parts or wholes), thematic roles,
instance-of.</p>
      <p>Cross-lingual linking is based on equivalence relations of each synsets
with an English synset: these relations indicate complete equivalence,
near equivalence, or equivalence as a hyponym or hyperonym. The
network of equivalence relations, the Inter-Lingual-Index (ILI), determines
the interconnectivity of the indigenous wordnets. Language-specific
synsets from different languages linked to the same ILI-record by means of
a synonym relation are considered conceptually equivalent. The LOIS
approach are not completely language-independent, since the
equivalence setting passes throughout the English wordnet and the English
translation of glossas support the localization process.</p>
      <p>
        The lesson learned from the LOIS experience is that a limited
language independence could be enough for cross-lingual retrieval tasks,
but that it could be a weak point when considering re-using, extending,
updating the semantic connections or when integrating external lexical
resources (for instance multilingual thesauri) within the framework.
What is needed is “the distinction between conceptual modeling at a
language-independent level and a language and culture specific analysis
and description of discourse-related units of understanding”
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref7">(Kerremans
and Temmerman, 2004)</xref>
        .
      </p>
      <p>These consideratons led us to make clear distinction, when designing
the overall model of DALOS and the system architecture, among:
− types of knowledge
− layers of knowledge representation
− classes of semantic relationships between knowledge elements.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Which knowledge for the DALOS service?</title>
      <p>DALOS aims at providing a knowledge resource on the basis of the
LOIS experience.</p>
      <p>The two projects however address two different scenarios: while the
LOIS knowledge resource is addressed to multiligual legal
information retrieval, the DALOS knowledge resource is expected to support
legislative drafting.</p>
      <p>
        This distinction of the addressed scenario is particularly important
because it contributes to identify the type of knowledge to be described
within the DALOS service, so to avoid the so called epistemological
promiscuity addressed by Breuker and Hoekstra
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref7">(Breuker and
Hoekstra, 2004)</xref>
        , namely the common attitude to “indiscriminately mixing
epistemological knowledge and domain knowledge in ontologies” which
prevents knowledge representations from being automatically reusable
outside the specific context for which the knowledge representation was
originally developed.
      </p>
      <p>As underlined by (Boer et al., 2004) the “norm is an epistemological
concept identified by its role in a type of reasoning and not something
that exclusively belongs to the vocabulary of the legal domain”. As
argued, “knowledge about reasoning – epistemology – and knowledge
about the problem domain – domain ontology – are to be separated if
the knowledge representation is to be reusable” (Boer et al., 2004).</p>
      <p>The DALOS case addresses the legislative drafting process, namely
a process that creates norms on specific domains to be regulated. What
is needed therefore is a knowledge and linguistic support giving a
description of concepts, as well as their lexical manifestations in different
languages, in specific domains before they are regulated.</p>
      <p>
        In particular, for the DALOS knowledge resource, avoiding
epistemological promiscuity means to avoid that the knowledge to be used
as support for legislative drafting (domain knowledge) is mixed with
the knowledge on the general process of drafting (epistemological
knowledge) which, obviously, pertains to different domains (see also
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3 ref4">(Biagioli
and Francesconi, 2005)</xref>
        ).
      </p>
      <p>According to previous works (Biagioli, 1997) the epistemological
knowledge related to the legislative drafting process can be modelled by
the Model of Provisions which establishes a taxonomy of provision types
(rules as definition, obligation, prohibition, sanction) and amendments
(insertion, repeal, substitution) which describe legislative texts
irrespective to the domain addressed, and pertain to the process of legislative
drafting. Such kind of knowledge therefore will not be described by the
DALOS resource, which, on the contrary, will contain knowledge on a
domain of interest. In particular for the aim of developing a project
pilot, the “consumer protection” domain has been chosen.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>4. KOS of the linguistic-ontological resource</title>
      <p>In this phase of the project the most part of the activities are addressed
to provide the specification for the DALOS resource. Chosen the domain
of interest (“consumer protection”) currently the activities for domain
knowledge specification are oriented to:
− the standards to be used for knowledge representation;
− the Knowledge Organization System (KOS).</p>
      <p>As regards the standards, the RDF/OWL standard conversion of
WordNet approved by the W3C standards will be used for the linguistic
resource (), thus guaranteeing interoperability as well as scalability of
the solution.</p>
      <p>As regards KOS, on the basis of the arguments expressed in Section
2.1, the DALOS resource is expected to be organized in two layers of
abstraction (see Fig. 1):
− the ontological layer containing the conceptual modeling at a
language-independent level;
− the lexical layer containing the lexical manifestations in different
languages of the concepts at the ontological layer.</p>
      <p>Basically the ontological layer acts as a knowledge layer where to
align concepts at European level independently from the language and
the legal order, according to the EU Commission recommendations for
Member State legislations. Moreover the ontological layer allows to
reduce the computational complexity of the problem of multilingual
term mapping (N-to-N mapping). Concepts at the ontological layer
act a “pivot” meta-language in a N-language environment, allowing
the reduction of the number of bilingual mapping relationships from
a factor N 2 to a factor 2N . Concepts at the ontological layer are linked
by taxonomical (is_a) as well as object property relationships.</p>
      <p>On the contrary the lexical layer aims at describing
language-dependent lexical manifestations of the concepts of the ontological layer. At
this level terms will be linked by linguistic relationships as those ones
used for the LOIS database (hyperonymy, hyponymy, meronymy, etc.).
In particular, to implement the lexical layer, the subset of the LOIS
database pertaining to the “consumer protection” lexicon will be used.
Moreover this database will be upgraded by using further texts where
to extract pertaining terms from.</p>
      <p>The connection between these two layers is aimed at representing
the relationship between concepts and their lexical manifestations:
− within a single-language context (different lexical variations
(lemmas) of the same meaning (concept));
− in a cross-language context (multilingual variations of the same
concept).</p>
      <p>In the DALOS KOS such link is represented by the hasLexicalization
(and its inverse hasConceptualization) relationship.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>5. Implementation of the DALOS resource</title>
      <p>In order to implement the DALOS linguistic-ontological resource three
main activites are foreseen:
1. Extracting terms of the domain of “consumer protection” law from
a set of chosen texts by using NLP tools; this activity is aimed at
upgrading the LOIS database (Lexical layer);
2. Construction of a Domain Ontology on the “consumer protection”
domain (Ontological layer);
3. Semi-automatic connection between the LOIS database selection
and the Domain Ontology by the hasLexicalization property
implementation and its inverse hasConceptualization [Lexical layer
↔ Ontological layer]). This activity will be supported by automatic
tools and validated by humans.</p>
      <p>The first activity (implementation of the Lexical Layer) will be
carried out using different NLP tools specifically addressed to process
Italian texts (T2K) as well as English and other EU language texts
(GATE).</p>
      <p>T2K3 is a terminology extractor and ontology learning tool jointly
developed by CNR-ILC4 and University of Pisa which combines
linguistic and statistical techniques. It performs the following tasks: a)
acquisition of domain terminology, both simple and multi-word terms,
from a document collection; b) organisation and structuring of the set
of acquired terms into taxonomical chains and clusters of semantically
related terms. It works on Italian document collections; in principle it
could be applied to document collections in languages other than Italian
provided than NLP resources and tools for those languages exist (i.e.
taggers, chunkers, dependency parsers).</p>
      <p>GATE5 is a tool to support advanced language analysis, data
visualisation, and information sharing in many languages, owned/provided and
maintained by the Department of Computer Science of the University
of Sheffield.</p>
      <p>
        The second activity (construction of a Domain Ontology) will be an
intellectual one which aims at describing the scenario to be regulated.
In this context the use of an ontology is of primary importance. Laws in
fact usually contain provisions (Biagioli, 1997) which deal with entities
(arguments) but they do not provide any general information on them:
for example the Italian privacy law regulates the behaviour of the entity
“Data controller” who is the owner of a set of personal data, but such
law does not give any additional information on this role in the real
domain-life
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3 ref4">(Biagioli and Francesconi, 2005)</xref>
        . Therefore a formalized
description in terms of an ontology of the domain to be regulated will
allow the possibility to obtain such additional general information on
the entities a new act will deal with. Moreover, the use of an ontology,
and particularly of the associated lexicon, allows to obtain a normalized
form of the terms with which entities are expressed, enhanching the
quality and the accessibility of legislative texts.
      </p>
      <p>3 Text-to-Knowledge
4 Institute of Computational Linguistic of the Italian National Research Council
5 General Architecture for Text Engineering</p>
      <p>The third activity will deal with the connection between the two level
of abstractions (the ontological layer and the lexical layer ). This activity
is expected to be particularly time consuming, since it will implement
the legal concept alignment on the basis of their lexical manifestations
in a multilingual environment. A tool to support such semi-automatic
mapping is expected to be implemented within the project.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>6. Conclusions</title>
      <p>In this paper an overview of the DALOS project has been presented.
The main purpose of the project is to provide law-makers with linguistic
and knowledge management tools to be used in the legislative processes,
in particular within the phase of legislative drafting. The aim is to keep
control over the legal language, especially in a multilingual
environment, as the EU legislation one, enhancing the quality of the legislative
production, the accessibility and alignment of legislation at European
level, as well as to promote awareness and democratic participation of
citizens. The ontological approach designed for the project has been
presented.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Breuker J.</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Hoekstra</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRICore, two core ontologies for law</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of EKAW Workshop on Core ontologies. CEUR</source>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Boer A.</surname>
          </string-name>
          , T. van Engers,
          <article-title>and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Winkels</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Using Ontologies for Comparing and Harmonizing Legislation</article-title>
          ,
          <source>In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law</source>
          ,
          <source>Edinburgh (UK)</source>
          ,
          <year>2003</year>
          . ACM Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Boer A.</surname>
          </string-name>
          , T. van Engers,
          <article-title>and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Winkels</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Mixing Legal and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Non-legal Norms</surname>
          </string-name>
          , In Moens, M.-F. and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Spyns</surname>
          </string-name>
          , P., editors,
          <source>Jurix</source>
          <year>2005</year>
          :
          <article-title>The Eighteenth Annual Conference</article-title>
          .,
          <source>Legal Knowledge and Information Systems</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>25</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>36</lpage>
          , Amsterdam. IOS Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Biagioli C.</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Francesconi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>A Visual Framework for Planning a New Bill</article-title>
          ,
          <source>In Quaderni CNIPA (Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Legislative XML)</source>
          ,
          <source>n. 18</source>
          , p.
          <fpage>83</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>95</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Biagioli C.</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Towards a legal rules functional micro-ontology</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Proceedings of workshop LEGONT '97.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Castagnoli S.</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
            <surname>Peters</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M. T.</given-names>
            <surname>Sagri</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Tiscornia</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>The LOIS Project, in Proceedings of the LREC 2006 Conference</source>
          , Genova, May
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kerremans</surname>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Temmerman</surname>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Towards</surname>
            <given-names>Multilingual</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Termontological Support in Ontology Engineering, in
          <source>Proceeding of Termino</source>
          <year>2004</year>
          , Workshop on Terminology, (
          <year>2004</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>