Call for Papers: LVI 2011: Law via the Internet Conference

A call for papers — with submission deadline of 15 February 2011 — has been issued for LVI 2011: Law via the Internet Conference, to be held 8-10 June 2011, at the University of Hong Kong in Hong Kong, China.

The conference will be hosted by the Hong Kong Legal Information Institute (HKLII).

LVI is the conference of the Free Access to Law Movement and the legal information institutes.

For LVI 2011, papers are invited on the following topics:

• Challenges and barriers in free access to law in Asia and elsewhere
• Multi-lingual legal databases and searching
• Legal issues in the provision of free legal information
• Governance and funding models for sustainability of free legal databases
• Making historical legal materials accessible online
• Social networking technologies and their implications for free access to law?
• Keeping track of legislative evolution online
• Quality control and timeliness of online legal services
• Standards for legal information on the web?
• Free access to law as community services
• International law on the web: Treaties, International Courts etc
• Finding law across the web – indexing and searching
• Litigation support on the web
• Innovative uses of online legal data
• Court registries and electronic filing / transactions
• Interactive and ‘intelligent’ legal services on the web
• Teaching law using internet resources
• Automation of large-scale legal data on the web
• Legal publishing via the web

For more information, please see the call for papers.

HT Steven C. Perkins.

Nevelov Mart, A Study of West’s Headnotes and Key Numbers and LexisNexis’s Headnotes and Topics

Susan Nevelow Mart of the University of California Hastings College of Law has published The Relevance of Results Generated by Human Indexing and Computer Algorithms: A Study of West’s Headnotes and Key Numbers and LexisNexis’s Headnotes and Topics, 102 Law Library Journal No. 2, pages 221-249 (2010). Here is the abstract:

This article begins the investigation into the different ways results are generated in West’s “Custom Digest” and in LexisNexis’s “Search by Topic or Headnote” and by KeyCite and Shepard’s. The author took ten pairs of matching headnotes from important federal and California cases and reviewed the results sets generated by each classification and citator system for relevance. The differences in the results sets for classification systems and for citator systems raise interesting issues about the efficiency and comprehensiveness of any one system, and the need to adjust research strategies accordingly.