Lexical resources for Accessing to Public Sector

Information

Maria-Teresa Sagri

Daniela Tiscornia

ITTIG (Institute for Theory and Techniques for Legal Information) Of the Italian Research

Council, Florence, Italy

Keywords. Knowledge management, public sector

information,

Interoperability and standards

Abstract. In man

y countries, public institutions, as the main producers and

distributors of legal source of information, have promoted projects aimed at

improving the availability and the free access to information via the web as a

significant component of the process of transparency in citizen/institution

interaction. This paper describes the state of the art in terms of European

projects created by public institutions for facilitating access to regulatory

information and it focuses the necessity of integrating structural documentary

standards with semantic ones for the description of content. The Italian

JurWordNet project is a source of semantic metadata aimed at supporting the

semantic interoperability between sectors of Public Administration; the creation

of a multilingual lexicon that extends the Italian model to five European

languages (the aim of the Lois Project that has recently been approved by the

EU) is also described.

1 Introduction: the social and ecomomic value of Legal

information

Legal information has both a social and economic dimension and is one of the most

important components of Public sector information (PSI) provision. In carrying out its

tasks the public sector collects, collates, creates, stores and disseminates huge

quantities of information: financial and business information, legal and administrative

information, geographical, traffic, tourist information etc.

PSI is crucial for democratic and civil life a

nd user-friendly and readily available

information enhances citizens’ participation in the democratic process. Moreover a

better use of public sector information is also useful to citizens by the provision of

added-value information products that the public sector itself cannot provide.

Therefore, the public sector can be considered the most important source of raw

material for the creation of value-added information content and services and the

Sagri M. and Tiscornia D. (2004).

Lexical resources for Accessing to Public Sector Information.

In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Electronic Government and Commerce: Design, Modeling, Analysis and Security, pages 1-12

DOI: 10.5220/0001389300010012

 SciTePress

primary locus to which both citizens and businesses can come for access to online

information. Clearly, public sector information has considerable economic potential

Better conditions for the exploitation of public sector information would lead to

both new opportunities for job creation and the production of value-added information

content and services vital to citizens and business. As part of the Action Plan for the

Information Society, the European Commission has adopted a Directive on the

exploitation of public sector information aimed at

achieving a basic set of common

rules in the European Community that at the same time do not or only minimally

affect current public sector workloads and budgets

In order to meet the Directive’s goals and to expand the European market in this

field the public sector should establish a legal and technical framework aimed at

improving dissemination of PSI and services to citizens and business. This should be

achieved by adopting a series of measures and strategies that include: a general right

to re-use PSI; effective co-operation between the public and private sector; a

transparent pricing structure; the adoption of standard licenses that prevent the

granting of exclusive rights; the provision of easy access to data; the adoption of the

digital format as the primary mode of information distribution; improving

administrative procedures and adopting common procedures, standards and metadata.

The importance of standards and metadata is stressed by the universal awareness

that the most important challenge that faces the Information Technology Society is

the capacity of handling the exponential growth of the Internet and the crucial

problems that this poses in generating, searching, extracting and updating

information.

The same problems affect the specific field of legal information where

practical/technical solutions for accessing information are also given a particular

‘social’ perspective by the need to enable citizens to access in an ‘understandable’

way legal, mainly regulatory, information.

In many countries, public institutions, as the main producers and distributors of

this source of information, have promoted projects aimed at improving the availability

and the free access to information via the web [5] as a significant component of the

process of transparency in citizen/institution interaction. One of the main goals in this

In order to estimate the extent of the economic value of public sector information, the

European Commission’s Directorate General for the Information Society commissioned a

study from PIRA International on the Commercial Exploitation of Europe’s Public Sector

Information PIRA International (2000) Commercial Exploitation of Europe’s Public Sector

Information. Final Report for the European Commission, Directorate General for the

Information Society.

Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003

on the re-use of public sector information, Official Journal L 345, 31/12/2003 P. 0090 –

0096. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_345/l_34520031231en00900096.pdf

area is the achievement of a high level of semantic interoperability between sectors in

order to:

• improve communication between areas and services of the Public

Administration

• make it possible for the user to access information and to make that

information available for further use by other sections of the Public

Administration;

• easy-to-access tools in order to incorporate and organize the data that the

users themselves are asked to supply.

This paper is structured in the following way: the state of the art in terms of

European projects created by public institutions for facilitating access to regulatory

information is outlined (section 1); their analysis then leads to the emergence of the

necessity of integrating structural documentary standards with semantic ones for the

description of content (section 2); the Italian JurWordNet project as a source of

semantic metadata is described (section 3); the creation of a multilingual lexicon that

extends the Italian model to five European languages (the aim of the Lois Project that

has recently been approved by the EU) is also described (section 4).

2 Standard for Legal Documents: State of the art

At a national level many initiatives exist that are specifically concerned with the

development of common standards across websites holding information on legal

matters. In the UK, the Legal and Advice Sectors Metadata Scheme (LAMS)

was

developed by the Lord Chancellor's Department as part of the Community Legal

Service (CLS) launched in April 2000. It is a central part of the British Government's

programme of legal reform, which is designed to increase ordinary people’s access to

justice. The UK Metadata Framework (UKMF) describes all the resources within

each government sector so that policy-makers have access to the resources on a

particular policy issue regardless of the department to which those resources belong.

As part of its e-government Plan, the Italian government has invested 12

million Euro in projects aimed at making legal information more readily available:

one of these is the Norme-in-rete Project

(NIR) in which all of Italy’s major

Institutions in this area participate (the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate, the

Department of Justice). The project envisages the XML codification of all standards

adopted in normative texts, including metadata descriptions.

In the Netherlands,  the METALEX project

is an open XML standard for the

mark up of legal sources. In France, an Action Spécifique on Legal Ontologies du

www.lcd.gov.uk/consult/meta/metafr.htm)

http://www.normeinrete.it)

www.metalex.nl

Droit et langage juridique has recently been set up by Governmental Institutions with

the aim of improving the LegiFrance public legal information system.

In Denmark, a similar Project (DAMIALex) has recently got under way. In other

EU countries the LEXML initiative

is a coordinating point for Germany, Sweden,

Austria, and Netherlands in the development of standardised structures, vocabularies

and data exchange tools. The US Association on legal XML is LegalXML

3 Accessing legal contents

On the development of the NIR, the need of a semantic standard as a tool for

describing content alongside structural standardisation has emerged.

One of the typical obstacles the citizen is faced with when accessing legal

resources is “Legal jargon”. The non-expert user has no precise idea of what he is

looking for and will often use common language rather than specific legal

terminology. Indeed several legal concepts may have different names in normal as

opposed to legal language. For instance, in Italian the common term “affitto” (rental),

which any interested party will use to retrieve relevant legal documentation, is

referred to in legal jargon as “locazione di immobili” (lease). Even professionals in

the legal field might encounter difficulties in retrieving some kinds of legal document

by using inappropriate keywords. This is a particularly pressing problem in the area of

case law (judicial decisions) where the discursive style of argumentation is often

affected by the semantic ambiguity of natural language. Identical legal concepts are

often designated by different terms, which are, however, synonyms from the legal

point of view. Thus, there is a clear need to be semantically explicit so that searches

are driven by a meta-description which holds to univocal references in the text.

Even more importantly, corporate users, citizens, but especially professional

organizations will benefit from cross language linkages in order to retrieve legal

documents from different European countries. The possibility of doing this is

becoming more and more vital as social and economic activities, which require legal

documentation, are acquiring an ever-increasing European dimension. In the future

we envisage that even non-specialized legal practises will need to consult legal

documentation from countries other than their own. (See section 4)

www.lexml.de

www.LegalXML.org.

4 JurWordNet

JurWordNet is a formal ontology-based extension to the legal area of the Italian part

of the EuroWordNet initiative

[10] [14]. As is the case for other WordNets

this is

relevant to the class of computational lexicons that aim at making word content

machine-understandable via the highly structured semantic representation of concepts

[7], [8], [2]. These are represented by synsets, a set of all the terms expressing the

same conceptual area (house, home, dwelling domicile…) linked by a semantic

relation of meaning equivalence. Semantic equivalences are limited (variants) in

many terminology lexicons such as the legal one, which has a plethora of technical

terms and where synonyms are rare. Conversely, it is important to create equivalence

relations with normal language in order to make up for the imprecision of non-experts

when searching for legal information, and to use common language terms instead of

legal ones. Apart from having taxonomic vertical relations, the synsets of the law

lexicon also have 17 associative horizontal relations based on the notions of

meronymy, synonymy, and role.

4.1 The methodology

Consistent with all WordNet projects, the developing methodology favours the use

and harmonization of already existing lexical resources. [12] Relevant concepts have

been spotted bottom-up from the queries of legal information systems. In particular

the lists of the Italgiure/Find system, the largest Italian law information system,

developed by the Court of Cassation, produced:

• the Semi database, 11,00 conceptually connected key words and headings;

Currently, the Italian language coverage offered by IWN amounts to 50,000 terms

(www.ilc.cnr.it); specialised sectors dealing with specific areas, e.g. EcoWordNet for

economic/financial language; Euroterm is an extension of Eurowordnet with Public Sector

Terminology funded by EC in the E-content Program. (www.ceid.upatras.gr/en/index.htm.)

Since its initial release by Princeton University, WordNet has always been regarded as one of

the most important resources in the NLP community (about 400 papers have been published

on the subject). This is the main reason. Why successively great efforts have been made to

make WordNet related technologies as stable as possible. For instance just in terms of

programmatic interfaces the community can rely on 21 access libraries in all major modern

computer languages. Also Multilingual WordNet can be considered mature in every respect.

The European commission recognized the importance of having linked WordNet for all

European languages as early as 1996 by funding the EuroWordnet project (LE-2 4003 &

LE-4 8328). The results and the methodologies developed within this project proved to be

so sound that in September 2001 a new project was launched, namely Balkanet, with the

goal of extending EuroWordNet to Balkan languages.

• the list of terms that common users includes in AND, from which derives the list

of syntagms, a group of about 13,000 two-word expressions.

• The list of words that common users include in OR, the so-called analogical

chain. Analogical chains are made up of synonyms, or terms that, at least in a

certain amount of searches were declared to be interchangeable by the majority of

users.

From syntagms, a taxonomy was automatically created with the main term, as

were the top levels of the trees derived from it, using, in a partially automatic mode,

the dictionary glossaries. A consolidated corpus of about 2000 synsets will be

automatically increased through the link with thesauri and key words for legal

databases. We will also map the resource with the MultiWordNet database, which

contains 1800 synsets marked as ‘legal’

4.2. Connection between legal and generic WordNet.

JurWordNet is a domain lexicon; as in all technical fields, it is impossible to trace a

borderline between common language and terminology: consequently, the legal

lexicon should not be considered as a sub-class separated from the generic base.

Overlapping occurs, both when the technical sense is stored in the Italian lexicon

(ItalWordNet), and when the term is stored only in its common meaning. The

connection between the two resources is made manually, adopting pragmatic criteria

relevant to the application task. The first simplification was to limit the connection to

nouns, as nouns make up almost the totality of this specific resource. A limited

amount of adjectives is included, as these are polysemies compared to the

nominalised use (private, public…); verbs appear rarely in syntagms and are

connected to the noun that acts as the subject/object. There are two kinds of Plug-in

functions between legal and generic resources:

- specific meaning that overlaps the generic meaning (eq-lug-in) occurs when the

sense defined in common language matches with terminology. However, the

definition (gloss) drawn from dictionaries or legal handbooks is more precise. In

this case, through simultaneous access, all the lower branches of the trees are the

specific ones, whereas the upper are in common Italian.

- a specification of the legal meaning as opposed to the generic one (hypo-plug-in),

which entails that the entire lower legal branch becomes a specific branch making

up that of common Italian.

http://tcc.itc.it/projects/multiwordnet/multiwordnet.php

4.3. Disambiguation of polysemies: linguistic and ontological levels.

One of the most interesting functions of the WordNet methodology is the distinction

of meanings in polysemic terms, both within the domain and in relation with common

language

. Often, sense distinctions do not just concern language but also the

differences in reality perception: for instance there is a need to separate within a

concept the role played as opposed to the existence of a tangible physical entity. The

entry President of the Republic indicates the physical person (referring to space and

dimension), the constitutional body, and the holder of the state function. Another

example, very common in law, is the distinction between the normative content and

the physical entity: the entry contract may be catalogued as a legal relation, as the

physical entity of the paper, and as information content.

The criteria followed to organize the concepts require, therefore, assumptions

that are external to the language. These assumptions must be explicit so that the user

is aware of the perspective according to which concepts are differentiated. This is the

role of ontology: “It is possible that a lexicon with a semantic hierarchy might serve

as the basis for a useful ontology, and an ontology may serve as a grounding for a

lexicon. This may be so in technical domains, in which vocabulary and ontology are

more closely tied than in more general domains” [6]. For this pourpose, we framed

high-level concepts in basic legal categories, and we have inserted terms used in law

handbooks, usually too generic for the search of the juridical data, which make up

integrating categories suitable for the dominion. For example, terms used in the

search, such as foundation, association, committee, and so on, are grouped in the class

institution, which is a concept created by doctrine that does not appear among the

lexical corpus.

Over and above the disambiguation of meaning within a linguistic and legal

system things become even more complicated when, as in our case (see section. 4),

the aim is to provide multicultural and multilingual communities with a shared

knowledge for accessing legal material.

Thus, the categories that bring together the top level of JurWordNet’s taxonomical

trees are the basic legal entities which are held to be common to all the legal systems.

We can give them a minimum series of properties shared by all the specific meanings

of each system and/or language. They make up a Core Ontology for law. Having a

nucleus of shared legal knowledge allows matching, integration, and comprehension

For instance, the Italian juridical term canone, means both the payment in money or in kind,

against a contract; or, in canon law, a universal juridical norm. The Italian term mora is

meant both as “unjustified lateness in discharging an obligation” and as “the amount of

money due as a fine against the delay”. The Italian term alimento substantially changes it’s

meaning if considered in its singular form as “food”, or plural form as “alimony”. The entry

alienation in a juridical context is a juridical act; whereas in common Italian is has several

meanings, all unconnected to the technical meaning of the term. Making explicit the

difference in meaning, the user is allowed to build more precise questions for information

searching.

of elaborate legal concepts created by particular legal systems, and grants that the

criteria used to organize the concept classes can be shared and are based on the law

[4], [13].

Legal ontology is the subset of social object ontology

, which, in turn,

requires ontological assumptions with regard to the “real world” as well as the social

and juridical. Both imply, and thus depend on, foundational ontology. The

foundational ontology upon which our core ontology is based (Core Legal Ontology

CLO) is DOLCE + (Extension of DOLCE, “Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and

Cognitive Engineering”, version 2.1 of D17 Deliverable Wonderweb

.). DOLCE was

developed by the Laboratory for Applied Ontology of the Institute of Cognitive

Sciences and Technology of the National Research Center in Rome. It collaborated

with the ITTIG for the development of a legal ontology [3].

5 Cross-lingual information retrieval: the LOIS project

This process also allows mapping terms between different languages. This is

particularly effective in the legal field where corresponding terms are often absent in

different languages but are present in concepts and legal systems. In the legislative

domain it is more appropriate to speak about multi-language versions of law texts

rather than translations. Shifting emphasis from the linguistic expression to content

allows comparing concepts through properties and metaproperties, and to assess not

only whether the concept itself occurs in different contexts, but also how the concept

is processed in different regulatory structures [1].

Translation problems are due to: a) language, b) difficult comparisons between

different legal systems.

With regard to the first case, jurists maintain that, “the translation of a word into

another is possible and legitimate to the extent to which the two words express the

same concept” [11]. It is possible to encounter situations in which although literal

According to the language philosopher John Searle, creating social or political ontology

means describing the nature, properties, and role of social entities. The ‘objects’

represented by nations, social classes, communities, associations, governments, banks,

universities, but also rights, obligations, powers, money, copyrights, patents, have no real

existence or physical identity, but fill social life and are the object of any conversation on

politics, social behaviours, and justice. Language created them, their existence is based on

international, historical, and social agreements, and their meaning changes according to the

various social contexts, historical ages, and discourse levels. The role of ontology is to

describe such objects making explicit the meaning assumptions in terms of minimal (meta)

properties that may be universally shared. On stricter, and more technical terms, ontology

defines concept meaning negotiations facilitating, especially on the Internet, communication

interchange, net interactivity, use of existing lexical resources, harmonization of contents,

and so on.

http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org

translations of terms can be made, the translated equivalent acquires within a different

linguistic context a completely different meaning: for example the Italian term diritto

civile translated into English as Civil Law has a very different meaning to the

apparently equivalent term employed in the Italian context.

Other kinds of problem at the linguistic level arise from the need to compare

linguistic systems that are very diverse in terms of structure and cultural pattern

dimension. For example French is characterised by an abundance of polisemic words

and the frequent use of insidious rhetorical forms that can only with great difficulty be

compared to the terms and structures of the more practical and pragmatic English

language. The difficulty in finding equivalent terms is all too apparent (e.g. agent,

estoppel, executor).

The most common and most difficult problem, however, is due to a substantial

divergence.

An example could be the term negozio giuridico which was introduced via

German legal science and with great difficulty can be assigned an equivalent in

French or English. It is a term that can be perfectly defined by both French and

English jurists but which cannot be translated through the use of a specific term in

these languages. This, of course, is a great limitation to the comparison and

translation of texts. The Italian entry capacità giuridica has no equivalent in English,

as there is no general theory on legal capacity within common law that may be

compared to the body in Italian legislation.

In the last years the growing need to make comparisons with foreign documents

has led research to tackle the issue of multilinguism by attempting to create tools to

obviate the difficult problem of legal concept and data communication.

For example, the European Community, via Eurodicautom, predisposed a

translation service of legal terminology taken from European laws, but because this

tool is based on practical terminology it does not include terms used in legal science

and it does not envisage a direct connection between the thesaurus developed by the

Community.

Jurovoc, the legal thesaurus of the Swiss Federal Tribunal is another type of tool

developed in this area. It is made up mostly of legal terms in German, French and

Italian that are connected amongst them selves in pairs. Compared to semantic

lexicons thesauri, and therefore also Jurivoc, do not include term definitions and so do

not resolve the problem of polysemes. It is difficult to grasp the meaning to which the

translated term refers. Over and above this, the list of terms is connected at a

taxonomic level (Bt, Nt) as well as to a generic reference to equivalent terms. The

type of semantic connection made between terms is therefore not defined. For

example, the term mora dei creditori is connected to penalità della mora. The

distinction between the sanction with respect to and the legal effects that can result

from this are missing. The WordNet methodology appears to offer solutions to the

treatment of multilinguism that are able to go beyond the limitations of these

approaches.

EuroWordNet has created an impressive quantity of documentation concerning

methods for developing multilingual ontologies in the WordNet framework. All

European local wordnets are linked to the ILI (Inter-Lingual Index) of English terms.

ILI is an unstructured list of meanings, where each synset has a one-to-one reference

(equal- to) to its source, without any language-specific relation [Vossen 1998]. Local

synsets can be mapped from language to language according to the inter-link of ILI.

This ‘shallow’ methodological choice was due to the difficulties encountered in the

EuroWordnet project in harmonising different lexical resources and separate starting

points. The homogeneity requirement was dealt with by top-down identification of the

Base Concepts and by the shared interpretation of semantic relations.

The European Commission

, in response to the need for a means of allowing the

access to cross-language legal information, has recently financed within the e-Content

program

, the LOIS project which will develop a multi-language database made up

of law wordnets in five European languages (English, German, Portuguese, Czech,

and Italian, linked by English).

The WordNets resulting from the EuroWordNet project cover standard language:

LOIS will extend them to legal language by tracking the relations existing between

common language and legal jargon synsets. In this way it will be possible to map

queries expressed in a non-technical way onto effective queries to highly technical

document bases.

The Legal WordNet developed by the ITTIG will be used as a basis

for all localization of legal lexicons.

The localisation methodology is a solution that has already been adopted by other

projects

. It is based on the automatic junction between already existing lexicons.

The basic premise is that semantic connections between the concepts of a language

can be mapped through the relationship between equivalent concepts in another

language. This procedure serves to test what is covered by the lexicon with respect to

the domain and provides an initial base of conceptual equivalents. From the first

results of this intersection with the lexicon of EU laws (via the Eurodicautom

database) it was evident that out of the 2000 synsets of the Italian law lexicon 800

could be found in the German, 470 in the Dutch, 490 in the Portuguese and 580 in the

English. The intersection with the Princeton WordNet showed 600 JurWordNet

synsets in the English lexicon, and these were classified as legal terms.

These initial operations allow for the automatic locating of some of the correct

semantic relationships that exist between terms in two different languages. For

example, it has been possible to eliminate the ambiguity between the two meanings of

Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 1997), Article 314 (ex Article 248): “This

Treaty, drawn up in a single original in the Dutch, French, German, and Italian languages,

all four texts being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government

of the Italian Republic, which shall transmit a certified copy to each of the Governments of

the other signatory States. Pursuant to the Accession Treaties, the Danish, English, Finnish,

Greek, Irish, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish versions of this Treaty shall also be

authentic”.

The project will start on the 1st of March 2004

Amongst others, see the MultiWordNet project

http://tcc.itc.it/projects/multiwordnet/multiwordnet.php

Eurodicautom is an aid for translators created by the European Commission

http://europa.eu.int/eurodicautom/Controller

the word “contratto” (sense 1, document and sense 2, voluntary agreement). In fact,

using the hypernym “document”, contratto 1) was linked to “instrument: document

that states some contractual relationship or grants some right”; and contratto 2)

“contract: a binding agreement between two or more persons that is enforceable by

law”.

A further example is the word Diritto which has two meanings in Italian, 1)

“faculty deriving from law or custom” or 2) set of legislative or customary norms that

regulate social relationships”. In English sense 1 corresponds to right, and sense 2 to

Law. Through the automatic comparison of Italian JurWN and legal terms in the

Princeton WordNet it is possible to connect to the correct translation by using

hypernym relationships. In fact diritto pubblico is correctly translated as public law

and from this the correct hyperonym “law” is created.

6 Conclusion

At present E-Government projects focus on the creation of standards that public

organizations can adopt universally; as a consequence the definition of semantic

standards must necessarily be at the generic level. The creation of cognitive interfaces

based on semantic lexicons allows for the overcoming of linguistic barriers in a

dynamic way during the research phase; from another angle lexicons can become a

marking source that can be used for the semantic tagging of legal documents with a

high social interest.

The Jur-WordNet project will shortly attain the following objectives:

• to enable full Legal coverage WordNet localization for at least 6 languages of the

EU members and candidate countries.

• Create links across several localized Legal Wordnets and across Legal Wordnets

and Standard Wordnets (whenever base Wordnets are available).

• Configure an information retrieval system able to exploit the above resources in

terms of more effective monolingual retrieval and cross lingual retrieval of

legal document bases.

References

1. De Grott G-R., La traduzione di informazioni giuridiche, in Ars Interpretandi n.5, Padova,

CEDAM, 2000.

2. Fellbaum C. (editor), WordNet: An electronic lexical database, Cambridge, MA: The MIT

Press, 1998, 305, downloadablefrom: http://mitpress.mit.edu/book-

home.tcl?isbn=026206197X.

3. Gangemi A., Guarino N., Masolo C., Oltramari, A. Sweetening WordNet with DOLCE, AI

Magazine 24(3): Fall 2003, 13-24Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Proceedings

of JURIX Conferences, Amsterdam, IOS Press.

4. Gangemi A., Sagri M.T., Tiscornia D., Metadata for Content Description in Legal

Information, Workshop Legal Ontologies, ICAIL2003, Edinburgh. In press for Journal of

Artificial Intelligence and Law, Kluwer.

5. Greenleaf G., Solving the Problems of Finding Law on the Web: World Law and DIAL,

2000(1) The Journal of Information, Law and Technologiey (JILT).

6. Hirst G., “ Ontology and the lexicon “ In Staab, Steffen and Studer, Rudi (editors) Handbook

on Ontologies in Information Systems, Berlin: Springer, 2003, p.14.

7. Miller G., WordNet: A lexical database for English, in Communications of the ACM 38(11),

1995, pp. 39-41.

8. Miller, G., Beckwith R., Fellbaum C., Gross D., Miller K.J., Introduction to WordNet: An

On-line Lexical Database. In International Journal of Lexicography, Vol.3, No.4, 235-244,

1990.

9. Pörn, I., Action Theory and Social Science, Some Formal Models, Reidel, 1977.

10. Roventini A., Alonge A., Bertagna F., Calzolari N., Marinelli R, Bernardo Magnini,

Manuela Speranza, Zampolli A. ItalWordNet: A Large Semantic Database for the

Automatic Treatment of the Italian Language First Internationa WordNet Conference,

Mysore, India, 2002.

11. Sacco R., Lingua e diritto, in Ars Interpretandi n.5, Padova, CEDAM, 2000.

12. Sagri M.T., 2003, Progetto per lo sviluppo di una rete lessicale giuridica on line attraverso

la specializzazione di ItalWornet, in Informatica e Diritto, ESI, Napoli, 2003.

13. Visser P., T. Bench Capon, 1999, Ontologies in the Design of Legal Knowledge Systems,

towards a Library of Legal Domain Ontologies, in Proceedings of Jurix 99, Leuven,

Belgique.

14. Vossen P., ed., EuroWordNet A Multilingual Database with Lexical Semantic Networks,

Kluwer Academic publishers, 1998.