Search

Cracking the Code: Rulemaking for Humans and Machines is an OECD Working Paper authored by James Mohun and Alex Roberts and released on 14 October 2020. This Working Paper on Public Governance, produced by the OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation, is available in English and French. A draft version was publicly available on the web for comments. In August 2020 the La Trobe LawTech team reached out to the authors and provided some comments on the draft Working Paper. Rules as Code is gaining momentum, increasing the need for constructive critical engagement. To support the broader discussions around Rules as Code, we are publishing our August 2020 Comments. These are provided in their original form, with small technical and language edits for wider publication.

Automating information extraction from legal documents and formalising them into a machine understandable format has long been an integral challenge to legal reasoning. Most approaches in the past consist of highly complex solutions that use annotated syntactic structures and grammar to distil rules. The current research trend is to utilise state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) approaches to automate these tasks, with minimum human interference. In this paper, based on its functional aspects, we propose a legal taxonomy of semantic types in Korean legislation, such as definitional provision, deeming provision, penalty, obligation, permission, prohibition, etc. In addition to this, a NLP classifier has been developed to facilitate the automated legal norms classification process and an overall F1 score of 0.97 has been achieved.

This legal and technical report on Spent Convictions modelling summarises the findings and results already presented in Deliverables DC3.1 - DC3.6 and provides concluding perspectives. This report includes a brief overview of the preliminary conceptual work and notes on the Spent Convictions Scheme solution prior to its semi-automated modelling. This report should ideally be read in conjunction with the earlier project deliverables: DC3.1 introduces the subject; DC3.2 presents the clustering for the survey on legal compliance; DC3.3 presents the roadmap towards publishing law as data using Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools; DC3.4 describes in more detail the Spent Convictions Scheme; DC3.5 elaborates on the potential interpretative issues and impact of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (Part VIIC – Division 3: Sections 85ZV, 85ZW and Associated Definitions); and DC3.6 analyses the case law perspective. This report briefly discusses (i) the survey on legal compliance in which the difference between regulatory and legal compliance is grounded; (ii) the legal issues raised by the Spent Convictions Scheme (steps, interpretations, case law and privacy); (iii) the Spent Convictions Scheme modelling in defeasible semantic logic, (iv) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques and applications. D3C.7 therefore summarises the results and findings of the Project and offers a proof of concept., DC25008: Compliance by Design (CbD) and Compliance through Design (CtD) solutions to support automated information sharing (2018-19). Law and Policy. Project C. Spent Convictions Use Case. Australian Government funded Data to Decisions Cooperative Research Centre (2018-2019), end-user: Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.

We present in this Deliverable: a regulatory quadrant to describe the rule of law; a cluster of concepts to describe instruments and processes of the law; the methodology followed to select the technical papers concerning regulatory compliance; and an initial mapping to frame the selected papers about legal compliance that we will use in our final survey. The result is a conceptual clustering that is useful to analyse and differentiate compliance by (CbD) and through (CtD) design. This outcome is work in progress: it will evolve as the legal analysis is developed. Preliminary results have been also presented at Casanovas et al (2017), and Hashmi et al. (2018b). A comprehensive explanation of the legal quadrant can be found in Casanovas (2019) (in Poblet et al 2019, chapter 5). A recent survey on business and regulatory compliance can be found at Hashmi et al. (2018a)., DC25008: Compliance by Design (CbD) and Compliance through Design (CtD) solutions to support automated information sharing (2018-19). Law and Policy. Project C. Spent Convictions Use Case. Australian Government funded Data to Decisions Cooperative Research Centre (2018-2019), end-user: Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.

Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Technologies for Regulatory Compliance (TERECOM 2018), Groningen, The Netherlands, December 12, 2018. Altres ajuts: DER2016-78108-P In this paper we present the preliminary results of a literature survey conducted in the context of a larger research project on legal compliance by design (LCbD) and legal compliance through design (LCtD). Even though a rich set of approaches and frameworks are available, our analysis shows that there is less focus on legal compliance in general, and LCbD and LCtD in particular. The technical literature on compliance has been concentrated on specific aspects of the law, i.e. mainly on those related to corporate and administrative management (including those of law firms and government). Other legal dimensions such as public law, case law, constitutional, virtual ethics etc., have been put aside.