skip to main content
10.5555/1367832.1367842acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesdg-oConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Relating taxonomies with regulations

Published: 18 May 2008 Publication History

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]
Al-Kofahi, K., Tyrrell, A., Vachher, A., and Jackson, P. 2001. A Machine Learning Approach to Prior Case Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2001), St. Louis, Missouri, 88--93.
[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]
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 1991. Knowledge Based Systems and Legal Applications, Academic Press Professional, Inc., San Diego, CA.
[4]
Bonnel, N., Lemaire, V., Cotarmanac'h, A., and Morin, A. 2006. Effective Organization and Visualization of Web Search Results. In Proceedings of the 24th IASTED International Conference on Internet and Multimedia Systems and Applications, Innsbruck, Austria, 209--216.
[5]
Brüninghaus, S., and Ashley, K. D. 2001. Improving the Representation of Legal Case Texts with Information Extraction Methods. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2001), St. Louis, Missouri, 42--51.
[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]
Kerrigan, S. 2003. A Software Infrastructure for Regulatory Information Management and Compliance Assistance, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
[16]
Kerrigan, S., and Law, K. 2003. Logic-Based Regulation Compliance-Assistance. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2003), Edinburgh, Scotland, 126--135.
[17]
Kim, M.-C., and Choi, K.-S. 1999. A Comparison of Collocation-based Similarity Measures in Query Expansion. Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, 35 (1), 19--30.
[18]
Larsen, B., and Aone, C. 1999. Fast and Effective Text Mining Using Linear-Time Document Clustering. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Diego, CA, 16--22.
[19]
Lau, G. 2004. A Comparative Analysis Framework for Semi-Structured Documents, with Applications to Government Regulations, Ph.D. Thesis, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
[20]
Lau, G., Law, K., and Wiederhold, G. 2005. Legal Information Retrieval and Application to E-Rulemaking. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2005), Bologna, Italy, 146--154.
[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]
Li, W., Clifton, C., and Liu, S. 2000. Database Integration using Neural Network: Implementation and Experiences. Knowledge and Information Systems, 2 (1), 73--96.
[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]
Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P. A., and Rahm, E. 2001. Generic Schema Matching with Cupid. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), Rome, Italy, 49--58.
[25]
Melnik, S., Garcia-Molina, H., and Rahm, E. 2002. Similarity Flooding: A Versatile Graph Matching Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), San Jose, CA, 117--128.
[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]
Milo, T., and Zohar, S. 1998. Using Schema Matching to Simplify Heterogeneous Data Translation. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference On Very Large Data Bases, New York, NY, 122--133.
[28]
Mitra, P. 2003. An Algebraic Framework for the Interoperation of Ontologies, Ph.D. Thesis, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
[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]
Moens, M.-F., Uyttendaele, C., and Dumortier, J. 1997. Abstracting of Legal Cases: The SALOMON Experience. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1997), Melbourne, Australia, 114--122.
[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]
Palopoli, L., Sacca, D., Terracina, G., and Ursino, D. 1999. A Unified Graph-based Framework for Deriving Nominal Interscheme Properties, Type Conflicts and Object Cluster Similarities. In Proceedings of the 4th IFCIS International Conference On Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS), Edinburgh, Scotland, 34--45.
[36]
Ray, S. 2002. Interoperability Standards in the Semantic Web. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 2, 65--69.
[37]
Roussinov, D., and Zhao, J. L. 2003. Automatic Discovery of Similarity Relationships Through Web Mining. Decision Support Systems, 25, 149--166.
[38]
Schweighofer, E., Rauber, A., and Dittenbach, M. 2001. Automatic Text Representation, Classification and Labeling in European Law. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2001), St. Louis, Missouri, 78--87.
[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]
Thompson, P. 2001. Automatic Categorization of Case Law. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2001), St. Louis, Missouri, 70--77.
[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.

Cited By

View all
  • (2012)REGNETProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance10.1145/2463728.2463764(175-183)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2012

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
dg.o '08: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Digital government research
May 2008
488 pages
ISBN:9781605580999

Sponsors

  • Routledge
  • Springer
  • Elsevier
  • Cefrio
  • NCDG: National Center for Digital Government

Publisher

Digital Government Society of North America

Publication History

Published: 18 May 2008

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. heterogeneous ontologies
  2. regulation retrieval
  3. relatedness analysis
  4. taxonomy interoperability

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

dg.o '08
Sponsor:
  • NCDG
dg.o '08: Digital government research
May 18 - 21, 2008
Montreal, Canada

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 150 of 271 submissions, 55%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 19 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2012)REGNETProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance10.1145/2463728.2463764(175-183)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2012

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media