View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
REGNETREGNET
Gloria Lau, Kincho Law, Gio WiederholdJune 8th, 2004
Legal Information Retrieval Legal Information Retrieval and Application to E-Rulemakingand Application to E-Rulemaking
22
MotivationMotivation
Multiple sources of regulations Multiple jurisdictions: federal, state, local, etc. Different formats, terminologies, contexts
UK DDA in HTMLADAAG in HTML
Amending rules, conflicting ideas
IBC in PDF
33
MotivationMotivation
Multiple sources of regulations Multiple jurisdictions: federal, state, local, etc. Different formats, terminologies, contexts Amending rules, conflicting ideas
Need for a repository Locate relevant information E.g., small business: penalty fees for violations
Need for analysis tool Complexity of regulations
Multiple jurisdictions Understanding of regulations & their relationships
44
Example 1: Related ProvisionsExample 1: Related Provisions
ADAAG Appendix 4.6.3
… Such a curb ramp opening must be located within the access aisle boundaries, not within the parking space boundaries.
CBC 1129B.4.3
… Ramps shall not encroach into any parking space.
Exception: 1. Ramps located at the front of accessible parking spaces may encroach into the length of such spaces …
CBC allows curb ramps encroaching into accessible parking stall access aisles, while ADA disallows encroachment into any portion of the stall.
55
Example 2: Related but Conflicting Example 2: Related but Conflicting ProvisionsProvisions
ADAAG 4.7.2Slope. …Transitions from ramps to walks, gutters, or streets shall be flush and free of abrupt changes…
CBC 1127B.5.5Beveled lip. The lower end of each curb ramp shall have a ½ inch (13mm) lip beveled at 45 degrees as a detectable way-finding edge for persons with visual impairments.
ADAAG focuses on wheelchair traversal; CBC focuses on the visually impaired when using a cane.
66
Relatedness analysis
Repository development
ScopeScope
generic features
domain-specific features
shallow parser
regulations in HTML, PDF,plain text, etc
feature extractor
Ontology
XML regulations
measurements exceptions definitions
Semio
concepts
author-prescribed
indicesglossary termsrefined XML regulations
DomainExpert
chemicals
effective dates
Similarity Analysis Core
domain knowledge
score refinements
feature matching
measurements
concepts
effective dates
drinking watercontaminants
base score
neighbor inclusion
reference distribution
refined score
discard belowthreshold pairs
related pairs
author-prescribed
indices
ontology (synonymicinformation) . . .
refined XMLregulations
. . .
domain-specificscoring algorithm
+
Repository development Relatedness analysis Performance evaluation , results and
applications
77
Repository developmentRepository development
generic features
domain-specific features
shallow parser
regulations in HTML, PDF,plain text, etc
feature extractor
Ontology
XML regulations
measurements exceptions definitions
Semio
concepts
author-prescribed
indicesglossary termsrefined XML regulations
DomainExpert
chemicals
effective dates
88
Sources of dataSources of data
Accessibility standards Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guide
(ADAAG) Drafted chapter for rights-of-way access Associated public comments
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) British Standard BS 8300 Scottish Technical Standards, Part S International Building Code (IBC), Chapter 11
Drinking water standards Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 (40 CFR) California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (22 CCR)
Fire code International Building Code (IBC), Chapter 9
99
Computational properties of regulationsComputational properties of regulations
4.7
4
4.1 4.5 Ground andFloor Surfaces.
4.9
4.7.4 Surface.Slopes of curb rampsshall comply with 4.5.
ADAAG
unbounded number of descendents
unboundedtree depth
child nodereference node
Hierarchical tree structure Referential structure Discipline-centered, e.g., ADAAG for accessibility Shallow parser to capture computational properties
<regulation id="ibc" name="international building code" type="private">
<regElement id="ibc.1107" name="special occupancies"> …
<regElement id="ibc.1107.2" name=“assembly area seating">
<reference id="ibc.1107.2.4.1" times="1" />
<concept name="assembl area" times="1" /> …
<regText>Assembly areas with fixed seating shall comply … </regText>
<regElement id="ibc.1107.2.1" name="services">...</regElement>
<regElement id="ibc.1107.2.2" name=“wheelchair …">...</regElement>
</regElement>
</regElement>
</regulation>
1010
Relatedness analysis
Repository development
ScopeScope
generic features
domain-specific features
shallow parser
regulations in HTML, PDF,plain text, etc
feature extractor
Ontology
XML regulations
measurements exceptions definitions
Semio
concepts
author-prescribed
indicesglossary termsrefined XML regulations
DomainExpert
chemicals
effective dates
Similarity Analysis Core
domain knowledge
score refinements
feature matching
measurements
concepts
effective dates
drinking watercontaminants
base score
neighbor inclusion
reference distribution
refined score
discard belowthreshold pairs
related pairs
author-prescribed
indices
ontology (synonymicinformation) . . .
refined XMLregulations
. . .
domain-specificscoring algorithm
+
Repository development Relatedness analysis Performance evaluation , results and
applications
1111
Related elements: door and entrance
Relatedness analysisRelatedness analysis
Similarity Analysis Core
domain knowledge
score refinements
feature matching
measurements
concepts
effective dates
drinking watercontaminants
base score
neighbor inclusion
reference distribution
refined score
discard belowthreshold pairs
related pairs
author-prescribed
indices
ontology (synonymicinformation) . . .
refined XMLregulations
. . .
domain-specificscoring algorithm
+
ADAAG4.1.6(3)(d) Doors(i) Where it is technically infeasible to comply with clear opening width requirements of 4.13.5, a projection ...
UFAS4.14.1 Minimum NumberEntrances required to be accessible by 4.1 shall be part of an accessible route and shall comply with ...
1212
Relatedness analysisRelatedness analysis
To utilize the computational properties of regulations for a complete comparison
Measure Degree of relatedness: similarity score f(A, U) (0,
1) Nodes A and U are provisions from two different
regulation trees
f (0, 1)A U
ADAAG UFAS
parent
sibling
child
psc(A) psc(U) ref(U)
child node
reference node
nodes in comparison
1313
Base score Base score ff00 computation computation
Linear combination of feature matching
F(A,U,i) = similarity score between Sections (A,U) based on feature i
N = total number of features = weighting coefficient
Similarity Analysis Core
domain knowledge
score refinements
feature matching
measurements
concepts
effective dates
drinking watercontaminants
base score
neighbor inclusion
reference distribution
refined score
discard belowthreshold pairs
related pairs
author-prescribed
indices
ontology (synonymicinformation) . . .
refined XMLregulations
. . .
domain-specificscoring algorithm
+
Feature matching Based on the Vector model using cosine similarity as the
distance between feature vectors Non-Boolean features
A measurement of “2 inches max” can be a 70% match to “2 inches”
Synonyms exist, e.g., ontology defined for chemicals Perform vector-space transformation prior to cosine
computation
N
i i iUAFUAf10 ),,(),(
11
N
i i
1414
Score refinements based on regulation Score refinements based on regulation structurestructure Neighbor inclusion
Diffusion of similarity between clusters of nodes in the tree Similarity Analysis Core
domain knowledge
score refinements
feature matching
measurements
concepts
effective dates
drinking watercontaminants
base score
neighbor inclusion
reference distribution
refined score
discard belowthreshold pairs
related pairs
author-prescribed
indices
ontology (synonymicinformation) . . .
refined XMLregulations
. . .
domain-specificscoring algorithm
+
A1 U1
ADAAG UFAS
psc(A1) psc(U1)
A2
U2psc(A2)
psc(U2)
child node
nodes in comparison
spread of similarity
red: similar nodes
blue: dissimilar nodes
1515
Score refinements based on regulation Score refinements based on regulation structurestructure
Reference distribution Diffusion of similarity between referencing nodes and
referenced nodes in the tree E.g., f(A5.3, U6.4(a)) updates f(A2.1, U3.3)
ADAAG--------------------------
Section 2.1-----------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5.3--------------------------
UFAS---------------------------------------
Section 3.3-----------------------------------------------------------------
Section 6.4(a)-------------
no crossreference
similarsections: fo != 0
reference
1616
Relatedness analysis
Repository development
ScopeScope
generic features
domain-specific features
shallow parser
regulations in HTML, PDF,plain text, etc
feature extractor
Ontology
XML regulations
measurements exceptions definitions
Semio
concepts
author-prescribed
indicesglossary termsrefined XML regulations
DomainExpert
chemicals
effective dates
Similarity Analysis Core
domain knowledge
score refinements
feature matching
measurements
concepts
effective dates
drinking watercontaminants
base score
neighbor inclusion
reference distribution
refined score
discard belowthreshold pairs
related pairs
author-prescribed
indices
ontology (synonymicinformation) . . .
refined XMLregulations
. . .
domain-specificscoring algorithm
+
Repository development Relatedness analysis Performance evaluation, results and
applications
1717
Performance evaluationPerformance evaluation
Conduct a user survey of rankings of similarity 10 randomly chosen sections from the ADAAG and
UFAS Ranks 1 to 100 in the order of relevance
Root mean square error (RMSE)
= user-generated ranking vector = machine-predicted ranking vector
hr
mr
RMSEN
rrrr
r
rr mNhNmh
h
mh22
112 )()(
oflength
||
1818
Survey results - Tabulated RMSE’sSurvey results - Tabulated RMSE’s Compared our analysis to Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI)
= structural weighting coefficient = feature weighting coefficient Average RMSE smaller than LSI Measurement feature performs best No improvement in result observed for structural comparison
1919
Results of comparisons: ADAAG vs. UFASResults of comparisons: ADAAG vs. UFAS Related accessible elements:
door and entrance Neighbor inclusion reveals
higher similarity
ADA Accessibility Guidelines 4.1.6(3)(d) Doors (i) Where it is technically infeasible to comply with clear opening width requirements of 4.13.5, a projection of 5/8 in maximum will be permitted for the latch side stop. (ii) If existing thresholds are 3/4 in high or less, and have (or are modified to have) a beveled edge on each side, they may remain.
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards 4.14.1 Minimum Number 4.14 Entrances 4.14.1 Minimum Number Entrances required to be accessible by 4.1 shall be part of an accessible route and shall comply with 4.3. Such entrances shall be connected by an accessible route to public transportation stops, to accessible parking and passenger loading zones, and to public streets or sidewalks if available (see 4.3.2(1)). They shall also be connected by an accessible route to all accessible spaces or elements within the building or facility.
4.1.6(3) 4.14
4.1.6(3)(d)Doors
4.14.1Entrances:
Minimum Number
4.14.2
4.1.6(3)(a)
4.1.6(3)(c)
4.1.6(3)(h)
ADAAG UFAS
parent
sibling
2020
Results of comparisons : UFAS vs. BS8300Results of comparisons : UFAS vs. BS8300
4.13 Doors 12.5.4 Doors
4.13.9Door Hardware
12.5.4.2Door Furniture
12.5.4.14.13.1
4.13.3
4.13.2
4.13.12
UFAS BS8300
parent
sibling
Terminological differences - revealed through neighbor inclusion
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards 4.13.9 Door Hardware 4.13 Doors 4.13.1 General ... 4.13.9 Door Hardware Handles, pulls, latches, locks, and other operating devices on accessible doors shall have a shape that is easy to grasp with one hand and does not require tight grasping ...
... 4.13.12 Door Opening Force
British Standard 8300 12.5.4.2 Door Furniture 12.5.4 Doors 12.5.4.1 Clear Widths of Door Openings 12.5.4.2 Door Furniture Door handles on hinged and sliding doors in accessible bedrooms should be easy to grip and operate by a wheelchair user or ambulant disabled person ...
2121
Results of comparisons : UFAS vs. Scottish Results of comparisons : UFAS vs. Scottish Technical StandardsTechnical Standards Terminological differences - revealed through reference
distribution Stairs and ramps
UFAS 4.1.2 Accessible Buildings: New Construction (4) Stairs connecting levels that are not connected by an elevator shall comply with 4.9. Scottish Technical Standards 3.17 Pedestrian Ramps A ramp must have (a) a width at least the minimum required for the equivalent type of stair in S3.4; and (b) a raised kerb at least 100mm high on any exposed side of a flight or landing, except – a ramp serving a single dwelling.
2222
Application domain: e-rulemaking Comparison between draft of rules and the associated
public comments ADAAG Chapter 11, rights-of-way draft
Less than 15 pages Over 1400 public comments received within 4 months Comments ~ 10MB in size; most are several pages long New regulation draft can easily generate a huge amount of
data that needs to be reviewed and analyzed Parsing of the draft and comments
From HTML to XML Recreate structure of the draft using our shallow parser Extract features from the draft and comments Treat individual comments as provisions
Application: e-rulemakingApplication: e-rulemaking
2323
E-rulemakingE-rulemaking
Drafted regulations compared with public comments
Content ofSection 1105.4
6 Related Public Comments
1105.4 [6]
2424
Related section in draft and public comment
Results from e-rulemaking applicationResults from e-rulemaking application
ADAAG Chapter 11 Rights-of-way Draft 1105.4.1 Length Where signal timing is inadequate for full crossing of all traffic lanes or where the crossing is not signalized, cut-through medians and pedestrian refuge islands shall be 72 inches (1830 mm) minimum in length in the direction of pedestrian travel.
Public Comment Deborah Wood, October 29, 2002 I am a member of The American Council of the Blind. I am writing to express my desire for the use of audible pedestrian traffic signals to become common practice. Traffic is becoming more and more complex, and many traffic signals are set up for the benefit of drivers rather than of pedestrians. This often means walk lights that are so short in duration that by the time a person who is blind realizes they have the light, the light has changed or is about to change, and they must wait for the next walk light. ...
2525
Results from e-rulemaking applicationResults from e-rulemaking application
No related provisions identified Concern not addressed in the draft
ADAAG Chapter 11 Rights-of-way Draft [None Retrieved] No relevant provision identified
Public Comment Donna Ring, September 6, 2002 If you become blind, no amount of electronics on your body or in the environment will make you safe and give back to you your freedom of movement. You have to learn modern blindness skills from a good teacher. You have to practice your new skills. Poor teaching cannot be solved by adding beeping lights to every big Street corner! I am blind myself. I travel to work in downtown Baltimore and back home every workday by myself. I go to meetings and musical events around town. I use the city bus and I walk, sometimes I take a cab or a friend drives me. Some of the blind people who work where I do are so poor at travel they can only use that lousy “mobility service” or pay a cab. Noisy street corners won’t help them ...
2626
ConclusionsConclusions
A framework for regulatory repository Structure of regulations recreated in XML Feature extractions
Prototype for similarity comparisons Contextual comparisons Domain knowledge Structural comparisons
Performance Evaluation, Results and Applications User survey and comparisons with LSI Observations of comparisons between Federal, State, non-
profit organization mandated codes and European standards
Application on e-rulemaking
2727
Future research directionsFuture research directions In the legal domain
Regulatory competition Cross border data transfer laws Especially in the polyglot countries in EU
Regulatory updates Track changes in updates Track cross references between regulations
Extension of application to other domains of semi-structured documents Software specifications User manuals
Similarity/relatedness is settled - how about differences and conflicts? A lot of almost identical provisions
2828
Thank You!Thank You!