Relating taxonomies with regulations

ABSTRACT

Increasingly, taxonomies are being developed for a wide variety of industrial domains and specific applications within those domains. These industry or application specific taxonomies attempt to represent the vocabularies commonly used by the practitioners. These formal representations have the potential to automate information retrieval, facilitate interoperability and improve decision making. Decisions made must comply with existing government regulations and codes of practices, which are not always known to the industry practitioners. Although regulations and codes are now in digital forms and are often available online, it remains difficult to search for relevant regulatory information that are applicable to particular decisions. As industry practitioners, unlike legal practitioners, are familiar with one or more industry-specific taxonomies but not necessarily regulatory organization systems, it would be desirable to relate regulations with existing industry-specific taxonomies.

The mapping from a single taxonomy to a single regulation is a trivial keyword matching task. In this paper, we examine techniques to map a single taxonomy to multiple regulations, as well as to map multiple taxonomies to a single regulation. Those techniques include cosine similarity, Jaccard coefficient and market-basket analysis. These techniques provide a metric that measures the similarity between concepts from different taxonomies. Preliminary evaluations of the three metrics are performed using examples from the building industry. These examples illustrate the potential regulatory benefits from the mapping between various taxonomies and regulations.

REFERENCES

• 1: Khalid Al-Kofahi , Alex Tyrrell , Arun Vachher , Peter Jackson, A machine learning approach to prior case retrieval, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.88-93, May 2001, St. Louis, Missouri, United States [doi>10.1145/383535.383545]
• 2: Begley, E. F., Palmer, M. E., and Reed, K. A. 2005. Semantic Mapping Between IAI ifcXML and FIATECH AEX Models for Centrifugal Pumps, Technical.
• 3: T. J. M. Bench-Capon, Knowledge-based systems and legal applications, Academic Press Professional, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1991
• 4: Nicolas Bonnel , Vincent Lemaire , Alexandre Cotarmanac'h , Annie Morin, Effective organization and visualization of web search results, Proceedings of the 24th IASTED international conference on Internet and multimedia systems and applications, p.209-216, February 13-15, 2006, Innsbruck, Austria
• 5: Stefanie Brüninghaus , Kevin D. Ashley, Improving the representation of legal case texts with information extraction methods, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.42-51, May 2001, St. Louis, Missouri, United States [doi>10.1145/383535.383540]
• 6: Fountain, J. E. 2002. Information Institutions and Governance: Advancing a Basic Social Science Research Program for Digital Government, Technical Report, National Center for Digital Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
• 7: Gallaher, M., O'Connor, A., Jr., J. B., and Gilday, L. 2004. Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the US Capital Facilities Industry, Technical Report, GCR 04--867, NIST.
• 8: Garas, F., and Hunter, I. 1998. CIMSteel (Computer Integrated Manufacturing in Constructional Steelwork) - Delivering the Promise. Structural Engineering, 76 (3), 43--45.
• 9: Gibbens, M. P. 2000. CalDAG 2000: California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook, Builder's Book, Canoga Park, CA.
• 10: Grabar, N., and Zweigenbaum, P. 2000. Automatic Acquisition of Domain-Specific Morphological Resources from Thesauri. In Proceedings of RIAO 2000: Content-Based Multimedia Information Access, Paris, France, 765--784.
• 11: Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J. H. 2001. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Springer, New York, NY.
• 12: Industry Foundation Classes (IFC), 1997. International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI).
• 13: International Building Code 2000, International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Whittier, CA, 2000.
• 14: Jacobs, J., and Linden, A. 2002. Semantic Web Technologies Take Middleware to the Next Level, Technical Report, T-17-5338, Gartner Group, http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=109295.
• 15: Shawn Lamont Kerrigan , Kincho H. Law, A software infrastructure for regulatory information management and compliance assistance, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2003
• 16: Shawn Kerrigan , Kincho H. Law, Logic-based regulation compliance-assistance, Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 24-28, 2003, Scotland, United Kingdom [doi>10.1145/1047788.1047820]
• 17: Myoung-Cheol Kim , Key-Sun Choi, A comparison of collocation-based similarity measures in query expansion, Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, v.35 n.1, p.19-30, Jan. 1999 [doi>10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00040-5]
• 18: Bjornar Larsen , Chinatsu Aone, Fast and effective text mining using linear-time document clustering, Proceedings of the fifth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, p.16-22, August 15-18, 1999, San Diego, California, United States [doi>10.1145/312129.312186]
• 19: Gloria T. Lau , Kincho H. Law, A comparative analysis framework for semi-structured documents, with applications to government regulations, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2004
• 20: Gloria T. Lau , Kincho H. Law , Gio Wiederhold, Legal information retrieval and application to e-rulemaking, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 06-11, 2005, Bologna, Italy [doi>10.1145/1165485.1165508]
• 21: Li, J. 2004. LOM: A Lexicon-based Ontology Mapping Tool. In Proceedings of the Information Interpretation and Integration Conference (I3CON) and the Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems (PerMIS) Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD
• 22: Wen-Syan Li , Chris Clifton , Shu-Yao Liu, Database intergration using neural networks: implementation and experiences, Knowledge and Information Systems, v.2 n.1, p.73-96, 2000 [doi>10.1007/s101150050004]
• 23: Lipman, R. 2006. Mapping Between the CIMsteel Integration Standards (CIS/2) and Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) Product Model for Structural Steel. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Montreal, Canada, 3087--3096.
• 24: Jayant Madhavan , Philip A. Bernstein , Erhard Rahm, Generic Schema Matching with Cupid, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, p.49-58, September 11-14, 2001
• 25: Similarity Flooding: A Versatile Graph Matching Algorithm and Its Application to Schema Matching, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Data Engineering, p.117, February 26-March 01, 2002
• 26: Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaun, C., Gross, D., and Miller, K. 1993. Five Papers on WordNet, Technical Report, Cognitive Science Laboratory, Princeton, NJ.
• 27: Tova Milo , Sagit Zohar, Using Schema Matching to Simplify Heterogeneous Data Translation, Proceedings of the 24rd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, p.122-133, August 24-27, 1998
• 28: Prasenjit Mitra , Gio Wiederhold, An algebraic framework for the interoperation of ontologies, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2004
• 29: Mitra, P., and Wiederhold, G. 2002. Resolving Terminological Heterogeneity in Ontologies. In Proceedings of Workshop on Ontologies and Semantic Interoperability at the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Lyon, France, 45--50.
• 30: Marie-Francine Moens , Caroline Uyttendaele , Jos Dumortier, Abstracting of legal cases: the SALOMON experience, Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.114-122, June 30-July 03, 1997, Melbourne, Australia [doi>10.1145/261618.261643]
• 31: Nahm, U. Y., Bilenko, M., and Mooney, R. J. 2002. Two Approaches to Handling Noisy Variation in Text Mining. In Proceedings of the ICML-2002 Workshop on Text Learning, Sydney, Australia, 18--27.
• 32: NIST. 1999. Interoperability Cost Analysis of the US Automotive Supply Chain, Technical Report, #99-1, http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report99-1.pdfT, NIST Strategic Planning and Economic Assessment Office.
• 33: Noy, N. F. 2003. "Tools for Mapping and Merging Ontologies," In S. Staab and R. Stude (Eds.), Handbook on Ontologies, Springer-Verlag, pp. 365--384.
• 34: OmniClass Construction Classification System, Edition 1.0, 2006. Construction Specifications Institute (CSI). http://www.omniclass.org.
• 35: Luigi Palopoli , Domenico Saccá , Giorgio Terracina , Domenico Ursino, A Unified Graph-Based Framework for Deriving Nominal Interscheme Properties, Type Conflicts and Object Cluster Similarities, Proceedings of the Fourth IECIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, p.34, September 02-04, 1999
• 36: Ray, S. 2002. Interoperability Standards in the Semantic Web. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 2, 65--69.
• 37: Dmitri Roussinov , J. Leon Zhao, Automatic discovery of similarity relationships through Web mining, Decision Support Systems, v.35 n.1, p.149-166, 01 April 2003 [doi>10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00102-1]
• 38: Erich Schweighofer , Andreas Rauber , Michael Dittenbach, Automatic text representation, classification and labeling in European law, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.78-87, May 2001, St. Louis, Missouri, United States [doi>10.1145/383535.383544]
• 39: Stumme, G., and Maedche, A. 2001. Ontology Merging for Federated Ontologies on the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Foundations of Models for Information Integration (FMII 2001), Seattle, WA, 16--18.
• 40: Paul Thompson, Automatic categorization of case law, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.70-77, May 2001, St. Louis, Missouri, United States [doi>10.1145/383535.383543]
• 41: Wang, H., Akinci, B., and Garrett, J. 2007. A Formalism for Detecting Version Differences in Data Models. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 21 (5), 321--330.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.3 INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL
      H.3.3 Information Search and Retrieval
          Subjects: Retrieval models

Additional Classification:
  J. Computer Applications
  J.1 ADMINISTRATIVE DATA PROCESSING
      Subjects: Law

Keywords:
heterogeneous ontologies, regulation retrieval, relatedness analysis, taxonomy interoperability