Many available options seem to be based on manual annotation and, therefore, cover a limited range of all legal texts. Especially with regard to regulatory topics, those research sites usually fall short.
> Many available options seem to be based on manual annotation
I’m not sure there’s an alternative: if a reference to an other text is complete (and thus fully disambiguated) it’s reasonably easy to infer it, but if it’s only partial and thus ambiguous (e.g. Article 54) then it becomes a lot more problematic: what happens legally if the system misinterprets the reference (e.g. to the current law’s article 54 but nearby contextual clues made it clear that it was some other text’s) and the reader follows this misinterpretation?
I would be interested to know where you're encountering these issues, specifically. I'm interested in legal tech, would like to know where the gaps are
jandinter|4 years ago
masklinn|4 years ago
I’m not sure there’s an alternative: if a reference to an other text is complete (and thus fully disambiguated) it’s reasonably easy to infer it, but if it’s only partial and thus ambiguous (e.g. Article 54) then it becomes a lot more problematic: what happens legally if the system misinterprets the reference (e.g. to the current law’s article 54 but nearby contextual clues made it clear that it was some other text’s) and the reader follows this misinterpretation?
ss108|4 years ago