Two recent posts are particularly noteworthy for the legal informatics community:
Posts Tagged ‘Legal descriptive metadata’
Free Law Project has added 1.5 million court decisions to its collection, due to a donation from Lawbox LLC, according to an announcement on 30 October 2013 by the project’s principals, Professor Dr. Brian Carver and Michael Lissner.
Here are excerpts of the announcement:
After many years of collecting and curating data, today CourtListener crossed some incredible boundaries. Thanks to a generous data donation from Lawbox LLC, our computers are currently adding more than 1.5M new opinions to CourtListener, expanding our coverage to a total of more than 350 jurisdictions. This new data enables legal professionals and researchers insight into data that has never before been available in bulk and greatly enhances the data we previously had. This data will be slowly rolling out in our front end, and will soon be available in bulk from our bulk downloads page. A new version of our coverage page was developed, and, as always, you can see our current coverage for any jurisdiction we support.
[...] In addition to being a massive expansion of our coverage, [this new data] also brings some notable improvements to the project:
For all of the new data and much of our old data, we have added star pagination throughout. For the first time, this will make pinpoint citations possible using the CourtListener platform.
We’ve re-organized our database for more accurate citations enabling for the first time the creation of a citation cross walk. We will soon be releasing an API for our data and when we do, a simple query for a citation could tell you equivalent citations for that opinion. For example, a query for a Supreme Court opinion could tell you its citation in West’s Federal Reporter, Lawyers’ Edition, and a historical citation, like one to Howard’s Supreme Court Reports. Similarly, for courts with neutral citations, one could query the neutral citation and get back the citation in the regional reporter and state reporter or vice versa. This has long been a pipe dream for numerous legal professionals and will soon be a reality.
This fills in previously unknown gaps in the data available from Resource.org. Although it is often considered complete, we have identified a few small gaps, which this donation has corrected.
We’ve completed a first pass at extracting judge information from all of the new opinions. This feature is still in beta since our extraction is not comprehensive, but this feature can be used for rough queries starting immediately.
We’ve created a massive database of all known reporters and released it for free to the public. In addition to containing all of the reporters we found when working with this donation, it contains variations for their names as found in our corpus and in the Cardiff Index to Legal Abbreviations. This database can be used in citation finders or other tools, like the Free Law Ferret.
We’ve created a new database of American jurisdictions. It currently contains 351 jurisdictions and can be used to create systems such as CourtListener. The data is not yet complete and we welcome your contributions.
[...] Over the remainder of the week we will be writing two additional posts about this topic, explaining the design work behind our new jurisdiction picker, and the process we use to merge new corpuses in with our existing data. [...]
For more details, please see the complete announcement.
Tags:APIs for court data, APIs for court decisions, APIs for judicial data, APIs for legal data, Brian Carver, Bulk access to court decisions, Bulk access to judicial decisions, Court data, Court decisions, CourtListener, Database of American jurisdictions, Free access to law, Free Law Project, Judicial data, Judicial decisions, Lawbox LLC, Legal bulk data, Legal descriptive metadata, Legal metadata, Michael Lissner, Public access to court decisions, Public access to legal decisions, Public access to legal information
Posted in APIs, Data sets | Leave a Comment »
Here are excerpts:
I am currently working on a project that involves large scale analysis of various countries’ Hansards (this is, transcripts of parliamentary debate). [...]
The UK Parliament has such a digitised archive, here.
Frustratingly though, although these zipped XML files are available, there is no bulk download option or simple FTP archive of them. [...]
So, to save anyone else the pain, here is a link to a file I built that contains links to every file in this archive. I used the handy FormRequest feature of Scrapy, my favourite, heavily used, scraping tool.
For more details, please see the complete post.
Tags:Andrew Whitby, Hansard Archive, Legal descriptive metadata, Legal identifiers, Legal metadata, Open legislative data, Parliamentary data, URLs for Hansard Archive, URLs for UK Hansard Archive, URLs for UK Hansards
Posted in Applications, Data sets, Technology developments, Technology tools | Leave a Comment »
LexML 2013: Third Annual Meeting of the Brazilian LexML Project = III Encontro Nacional do LexML, is being held 13 August 2013, at Senado Federal, Brasilia, Brazil.
The agenda items include:
- Painel : Consulta Pública do Modelo de Requisitos para Sistemas Informatizados de Gestão da Informação Jurídica
- Painel : Gestão da Informação Jurídica
- Lançamento do Manual de Pesquisa do Portal LexML
- Painel : Novas Ferramentas, novos avanços
- Painel : Integração SAPL e LexML
- Painel : Inclusão da Doutrina no Portal LexML
Dr. João Lima of the Senado Federal sends the following description of the event:
I would highlight the the launch of the public consultation of the “Requirements Model for Legal Information Management Information Systems”. This is a conceptual model created by an interdisciplinary working group which met 37 times since 2010, which aims to manage the force, the efficacy, and the compiled versions of legal texts and corresponding relationships that occurs in time. The 80-page document (in Portuguese only) consists of an introduction, a list of requirements, a terminology, a table that details the relationships and some state transition diagrams. We developed this model considering the three levels of the Brazilian government (federal, state and municipal) and the entire spectrum of legal information, from the constitutional to the infra-legal acts. The inspiration for this model came from MoReq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoReq2), developed in Europe in the context of the Records Management area.
In the afternoon, we will present some tools developed by our group for the management of the full text of legal and legislative documents. The novelty is the LexComp, a tool that helps in the creation of comparative multicolumn tables of legislative and legal texts.
Tags:Annual Meeting of Brazilian LexML Project, Brazilian LexML Project, Consulta Pública do Modelo de Requisitos para Sistemas Informatizados de Gestão da Informação Jurídica, Court information systems, Encontro Nacional do LexML, João Alberto de Oliveira Lima, João Lima, Judicial information systems, Judicial metadata, Judicial metadata models, Legal descriptive metadata, Legal metadata, Legal metadata models, Legal structural metadata, Legislative information systems, Legislative metadata, Legislative metadata models, LexComp, LexML, LexML 2013, LexML Portal, Modelo de Requisitos para Sistemas Informatizados de Gestão da Informação Jurídica, MoReq, MoReq and legal information, Requirements Model for Legal Information Management Information Systems, Requirements models for legal information
Posted in Applications, Conference Announcements, Projects, Technology developments, Technology tools | 1 Comment »
Here are excerpts:
There has been a lot of interest and I have gotten great feedback on the post about the book I’m writing with Grant about legislative data. [...] Among the questions on data standards that have sparked interest is the question of how to assign unique identifiers to legal text. These are needed for many reasons, in a variety of contexts. The most straightforward is to be able to hyperlink to a specific subsection of a bill or law.
Some options for creating the unique identifier include:
- A unique randomish code (e.g. based on the current datetime)
- A hash of the text of the section
- A URN or URL identifier based on a standard, human-readable path to the section (e.g. us/uscode/title26/section100)
- Some combination of the above
Rather than get ahead of myself and draft out the entire chapter on unique identifiers, I’ll stop here and invite your comments.
- What is important to preserve in a unique identifier for legal texts?
- What id schemes have proven successful in other document-based structures?
- What would Google (or Linus Torvalds) do?
If you have Insights or connections to People With Insights– please comment here or let me or Grant know.
For more details, please see the complete post.
Tags:Ari Hershowitz, Legal descriptive metadata, Legal identifiers, Legal metadata, Legislative descriptive metadata, Legislative identifiers, Legislative metadata, Tabulaw Blog
Posted in Applications, Others' scholarly or sophisticated blogposts, Standards, Technology developments | 7 Comments »
The post describes the online publication of U.S. federal court decisions on the U.S. Government Printing Office’s FDsys platform, and recommends ways to improve FDsys‘s publishing practices.
Tags:"Digital law publishing", Bulk access to court decisions, Bulk access to judicial decisions, Bulk access to legal data, Bulk access to legal documents, Bulk access to legal information, Court decisions, Court decisions on FDsys, Court metadata, Daniel Lewis, Digital legal publishing, FDsys, Free access to law, Judicial decisions, Judicial decisions on FDsys, Judicial metadata, Legal citations, Legal descriptive metadata, Legal metadata, Neutral citation, Nicholas Reed, Nik Reed, Online legal publishing, Public access to legal information, Ravel Law, Vendor neutral legal citation standards, VoxPopuLII
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
Here is an excerpt:
So with software we acquired and modified for the purpose, we’ve been adding data to the bills in Congress, making it possible to learn automatically more of what they do. The bills published by the Government Printing Office have data about who introduced them and the committees to which they were referred. We are adding data that reflects:
- What agencies and bureaus the bills in Congress affect;
- What laws the bills in Congress affect: by popular name, U.S. Code section, Statutes at Large citation, and more;
- What budget authorities bills include, the amount of this proposed spending, its purpose, and the fiscal year(s).
- We are capturing proposed new bureaus and programs, proposed new sections of existing law, and other subtleties in legislation.
I think Jim presented this project at the 2013 House Legislative Data and Transparency Conference.
For more details, please see the complete post.
Tags:Cato at Liberty, Deep Bills, DeepBills, House Legislative Data and Transparency Conference 2013, Jim Harper, Legal descriptive metadata, Legal metadata, Legislative data, Legislative descriptive metadata, Legislative information systems, Legislative metadata
Posted in Applications, Technology developments, Technology tools | 2 Comments »
Here is a description of Open Virginia:
Open Virginia is an effort to document the open government data published about the Commonwealth of Virginia—APIs, bulk downloads, and links to third-party data sources that provide much-needed information about how our government works.
Open Virginia currently offers access to legal data, including:
- the state’s legislative code
- code sections affected by bills 2006-
- a list of Virginia Court of Appeals decisions that cite a given law
- data on members of the state legislature
Tags:CKAN, CKAN and legal data, CKAN and legislative data, Code sections affected by bills, Court decisions, Court metadata, Data about legislators, Free access to law, Judicial decisions, Judicial metadata, Legal descriptive metadata, Legal metadata, Legislative amendments, Legislative code sections affected by bills, Legislative data, Legislative information systems, Legislative metadata, Metadata about legislative amendments, Open legislative data, Open Virginia, Public access to legal information, Public access to legislative data, Waldo Jaquith
Posted in Applications, Data sets | Leave a Comment »