[1] S. Auer, C. Bizer, G. Kobilarov, J. Lehmann, R. Cyganiak, and Z. Ives. DBpedia: A Nucleus for a Web of Open Data. 6th International Semantic Web Conference, November 2007. [2] J. Breslin, A. Harth, U. Bojars, and S. Decker. Towards Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities. 2nd European Semantic Web Conference, May 2005. [3] D. Brickley and L. Miller. FOAF Vocabulary Specification 0.91, November 2007. http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/. [4] S. Golder and B. A. Huberman. Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2):198–208, April 2006. [5] T. Gruber. Ontology of folksonomy: A mash-up of apples and oranges. International Journal on
Semantic Web and Information Systems, 3(2), 2007. [6] H. Halpin, V. Robu, and H. Shepard. The dynamics and semantics of collaborative tagging. In Proceedings of the 1st Semantic Authoring and Annotation Workshop (SAAW06), November 2006. [7] S. Handschuh and S. Staab. Annotation for the Semantic Web. Number 96 in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2003. [8] C. Hayes and P. Avesani. Using tags and clustering to identify topic-relevant blogs. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 07), Boulder, Colorado, March 2007. [9] J. Kahan and M.-R. Koivunen. Annotea: an open RDF infrastructure for shared Web annotations. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference on World Wide Web, pages 623–632, New York, 2001. ACM Press. [10] H. Kim, J. Breslin, S. Yang, and H. Kim. int.ere.st: Building a Tag Sharing Service with the SCOT Ontology. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2008 Spring Symposium on Social Information Processing, Stanford University, California, 2008. [11] A. Mathes. Folksonomies – Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata. http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computermediated-communication/folksonomies.html, December 2004. [12] P. Mika. Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics. In Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2005, volume 3729 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 522–536, Galway, Ireland, November 2005. [13] R. Newman. Tag ontology design. http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/, March 2005. [14] A. Passant. Using Ontologies to Strengthen Folksonomies and Enrich Information Retrieval in Weblogs. In Proceedings of International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Boulder, Colorado, March 2007. [15] L. Specia and E. Motta. Integrating folksonomies with the semantic web. In Proceedings of the European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC2007), LNCS, pages 624–639, July 2007. [16] G. Tummarello, R. Delbru, and E. Oren. Sindice.com: Weaving the open linked data. In 6th International Semantic Web Conference, pages 552–565, 2007. [17] C. M. A. Yeung, N. Gibbins, and N. Shadbolt. Understanding the semantics of ambiguous tags in folksonomies. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Emergent Semantics and Ontology Evolution (ESOE2007) at ISWC/ASWC2007, November 2007.

Bos N, Zimmerman A, Olson J, Yew J, Yerkie J, Dahl E, Olson G. From shared databases to communities of practice: A taxonomy of collaboratories. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2007;12(2) doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00343.x. article 16. [Cross Ref]
16.Fjällbrandt N. International Association of Scientific and Technical University Libraries (IATUL) Trondheim, Norway: IATUL; 1997. Scholarly Communication: Historical Development and New Possibilities.
17.Star SL, Griesemer JR. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science (Sage) 1989;19(3):387–420. doi: 10.1177/030631289019003001. [Cross Ref]
18.Shapin S. In: The Scientific Revolution. Hellyer M, editor. Oxford: Blackwell; 2003. Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology.
19.Carr L, De Roure D, Hall W, Hill G. Fourth International World Wide Web Conference. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: World Wide Web Consortium (W3C); 1995. The Distributed Link Service: A Tool for Publishers, Authors and Readers.
20.Bechhofer S, Goble C. In: Annotation for the Semantic Web. Handschuh S, Staab S, editor. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2003. COHSE: Conceptual Open Hypermedia Service.
21.Bechhofer S. Informal Discussion on COHSE and the MGH Annotation Framework. 2010.
22.Schober D, Smith B, Lewis SE, Kusnierczyk W, Lomax J, Mungall C, Taylor CF, Rocca-Serra P, Sansone SA. Survey-based naming conventions for use in OBO Foundry ontology development. BMC Bioinformatics. 2009;10:125. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-10-125. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

24.Das S, Rogan M, Kawadler H, Corlosquet S, Brin S, Clark T. Workshop on the Future of the Web for Collaborative Science, 19th International World Wide Web Conference. Raleigh, NC, USA; 2010. PD Online: a case study in scientific collaboration on the Web.

30.Renear AH, Palmer CL. Strategic Reading, Ontologies, and the Future of Scientific Publishing. Science. 2009;325(5942):828–832. doi: 10.1126/science.1157784. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
31.McGuinness D, van Harmelen F. OWL Web Ontology Language. W3C Recommendation. 2004.
32.Miles A, Bechhofer S. SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference. W3C Recommendation. 2009.
35.O’Reilly T. What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. O’Reilly Network; 2005.
36.Berendt B, Hotho A, Stumme G. Bridging the Gap–Data Mining and Social Network Analysis for Integrating Semantic Web and Web 2.0. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web. 2010;8(2-3):95–96. doi: 10.1016/j.websem.2010.04.008.
37.Specia L, Motta E. The Semantic Web: Research and Applications. Vol. 4519. Springer; 2007. Integrating Folksonomies with the Semantic Web; pp. 624–639. full_text.
38.Kim H-L, Scerri S, Breslin J, Decker S, Kim HG. International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applicaitons. Germany; 2008. The State of the Art in Tag Ontologies.
39.Angeletou S, Sabou M, Motta E. Workshop on Collective Intelligence and the Semantic Web, European Semantic Web Conference. Tenerife, Spain; 2008. Semantically Enriching Folksonomies with FLOR.
40.Golder SA, Huberman BA. Usage Patterns of Collaborative Tagging systems. Journal of Information Science. 2006;32(2):198–208. doi: 10.1177/0165551506062337.
41.Passant A. International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. U.S.A.; 2007. Using Ontologies to Strengthen Folksonomies and Enrich Information Retrieval in Weblogs: Theoretical Background and Corporate Use-Case.
42.Mika P. International Semantic Web Conference. Galway, Ireland; 2005. Ontologies Are Us: A Unified Model of Social Networks and Semantics.
43.Tanasescu V, Streibel O. International Workshop on Emergent Semantics and Ontology Evolution. Korea; 2007. Extreme Tagging: Emergent Semantics throught the Tagging of Tags.
44.Tag Ontology Design. http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags
45.Gruber T. Ontology of Folksonomy: A Mashup of Apples and Oranges. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems. 2007;3(2)
46.The Gene Ontology C. The Gene Ontology project in 2008. Nucl Acids Res. 2008;36(suppl_1):D440–444. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
47.Kahan J, Koivunen M-R, Prud’Hommeaux E, Swick RR. WWW10 International Conference. Hong Kong: World Wide Web Consortium; 2001. Annotea: An Open RDF Infrastructure for Shared Web Annotations.
48.Koivunen M-R, Swick R. In: Annotation for the Semantic Web. Handschuh S, Staab S, editor. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2003. Collaboration through Annotation in the Semantic Web; pp. 46–60.
49.Garcia-Castro A, Labarga A, Garcia L, Giraldo O, MontaÒa C, Bateman JA. Semantic Web and Social Web heading towards Living Documents in the Life Sciences. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web. 2010;8(2-3):155–162. doi: 10.1016/j.websem.2010.03.006. [Cross Ref]
51.The Annotation Ontology on Google Code. http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/
52.Ciccarese P, Wu E, Wong G, Ocana M, Kinoshita J, Ruttenberg A, Clark T. The SWAN biomedical discourse ontology. J Biomed Inform. 2008;41(5):739–751. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.04.010. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
55.Breslin J, Harth A, Bojars U, Decker S. Toward Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2005;3532/2005:500–514. full_text.
56.Passant A, Laublet P. Llinked Data on the Web Workshop, International World Wide Web Conference. Beijing, China; 2008. Meaning of a Tag: A Collaborative Approach to Bridge the Gap Between Tagging and Linked Data.
57.Becket D. RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised) W3C Recommndation. 2004.
58.Grosso P, Maler E, Marsh J, Walsh N. W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium; 2003. Xpointer Framework.
59.DeRose S, Maler E, Orchard D. XML Linking Language (XLink) Version 1.0. W3C Recommendation. 2001.
60.Fielding R, Getty J, Mogul J, Frystyk H, Masinter L, Leach P, Berners-Lee T. Hypertext Transfer Protocol — HTTP/1.1, IETF RFC 2616. Internet Engineering Task Force. 1999.
61.Koivunen M, Swick R, Prud’hommeaux E. Proceedings of the Annotation Workshop, KCAP03. Sanibel, Florida, USA; 2004. Annotea shared bookmarks.
62.Brickley D, Miller L. FOAF Vocabulary Specification 0.97. Namespace Document 1 January 2010 – 3D Edition. 2010.
63.Semantic Web Applications in Neuromedicine (SWAN) Ontology, W3C Interest Group Note 20 October 2009. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/swan/
64.PAV Ontology on Google Code: PAV Ontology 2.0. http://code.google.com/p/pav-ontology/
65.Shotton D, Portwin K, Klyne G, Miles A. Adventures in semantic publishing: exemplar semantic enhancements of a research article. PLoS Comput Biol. 2009;5(4):e1000361. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000361. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
66.Bibliographic Ontology Specification: Specification Document – 4 November 2009. http://bibliontology.com/specification
67.SWAN Collections Ontology Specification. http://swan.mindinformatics.org/spec/1.2/collections.html
68.SIOC Ontology: Applications and Implementation Status. http://www.w3.org/Submission/sioc-applications/ W3C Member Submission 12 June 2007.
69.SWAN/SIOC: Alignment Between the SWAN and SIOC Ontologies. http://www.w3.org/TR/hcls-swansioc/ W3C Interest Group Note 20 October 2009.

G. Beenen, K. Ling, X. Wang, K. Chang, D. Frankowski, P. Resnick, and R. E. Kraut. Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities. In Proc. of CSCW ’04, 2004. [2] U. Brandes. A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25(2):163–177, 2001. [3] J. J. Cadiz, A. Gupta, and J. Grudin. Using web annotations for asynchronous collaboration around documents. In Proc. of CSCW ’00, 2000. [4] R. Cameron. Citeulike. http://www.citeulike.org/, Mar. 2006. [5] H. Chen. Collaborative systems: Solving the vocabulary problem. IEEE Computer, Special Issue on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 27(5):58–66, 1994. [6] C. Y. Chung, R. Lieu, J. Liu, A. Luk, J. Mao, and P. Raghavan. Thematic mapping – from unstructured documents to taxonomies. In Proc. of CIKM ’02, 2002. [7] K. C. Desouza. Facilitating tacit knowledge exchange. Comm. ACM, 46(6):85–88, 2003. [8] D. Eppstein and J. Y. Wang. Fast approximation of centrality. In Proc. 12th Symp. Discrete Algorithms, pages 228–229. ACM and SIAM, 2001. [9] G. W. Furnas. Experience with an adaptive indexing scheme. In Proc. of CHI ’85, 1985. [10] G. W. Furnas, T. K. Landauer, L. M. Gomez, and S. T. Dumais. The vocabulary problem in human-system communication. Commun. ACM, 30(11):964–971, 1987. [11] S. Golder and B. A. Huberman. The Structure of Collaborative Tagging Systems, 2005. [12] J. Hinrichs, V. Pipek, and V. Wulf. Context grabbing:
Assigning metadata in large document collections. In Proc. of ECSCW ’05, Paris, France, 2005. Springer. [13] S. H. Kome. Hierarchical subject relationships in folksonomies. Master’s thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, Nov. 2005. [14] B. Lund, T. Hammond, M. Flack, and T. Hannay. Social bookmarking tools: A case study – connotea. D-Lib Magazine, 11(4), 2005. [15] C. Marlow, M. Naaman, d. boyd, and M. Davis. Position Paper, Tagging, Taxonomy, Flickr, Article, ToRead. 2005. [16] C. C. Marshall and B. J. B. Brush. Exploring the relationship between personal and public annotations. In Proc. of JCDL ’04, 2004. [17] R. L. Riolo, M. D. Cohen, and R. Axelrod. Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity. Nature, 414(6862):441– 443, 2001. [18] J. Schachter. del.icio.us. http://del.icio.us/, Mar. 2006. [19] J. Tanaka and M. Taylor. Object categories and expertise: is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? Cogn. Psychol., 23:457–482, 1991. [20] C. Weng and J. H. Gennari. Asynchronous collaborative writing through annotations. In Proc. of CSCW ’04, 2004. [21] H. Wu, M. D. Gordon, and K. DeMaagd. Document co-organization in an online knowledge community. In Proc. of CHI ’04, pages 1211–1214, 2004. [22] H. Wu, M. D. Gordon, K. DeMaagd, and N. Bos. Link analysis for collaborative knowledge building. In Proc. of HYPERTEXT ’03, pages 216–217, 2003.

Vincent Aleven. Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1997. [2] Kevin Ashley and Stefanie Brüninghaus. Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artificial Intellence and Law, 17(2):125–165, 2009. [3] Hamish Cunningham, Diana Maynard, Kalina Bontcheva, and Valentin Tablan. GATE: A framework andgraphicaldevelopmentenvironmentforrobustNLPtoolsandapplications. InProceedingsACL’02, pages 168–175, 2002. [4] Emile de Maat and Radboud Winkels. Automated classification of norms in sources of law. In E. Francesconi, et al., editors, SPLeT’10, volume 6036 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 170– 191. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2010. [5] Ulle Endriss and Raquel Fernández. Collective annotation of linguistic resources: Basic principles and a formal model. In ACL, pages 539–549, Sofia, Bulgaria, August 2013. Association for Computational Linguistics. [6] Barbara Di Eugenio and Michael Glass. The kappa statistic: a second look. Computational Linguistics, (30):95–101, 2004. [7] Enrico Francesconi and Tommaso Pratelli. A twofold parsing strategy for italian court decisions. In K. Atkinson, editor, JURIX’11), pages 125–129. IOS Press, 2011. [8] Sharon Hanson. Legal Method and Reasoning. Cavendish, 2003. [9] Kazuaki Maeda, Haejoong Lee, Shawn Medero, Julie Medero, Robert Parker, and Stephanie Strassel. Annotationtooldevelopmentforlarge-scalecorpuscreationprojectsatthelinguisticdataconsortium. In N Calzolari, et al., editors, LREC’08, Marrakech, Morocco, May 2008. European Language Resources Association. [10] Christopher Manning and Hinrich Schutze. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999. [11] Raquel Mochales-Palau and Marie-Francine Moens. Study on the structure of argumentation in case law. In E. Francesconi, et al., editors, JURIX’08, volume 189 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 11–20. IOS Press, 2008. [12] Marie-Francine Moens, Erik Boiy, Raquel Mochales-Palau, and Chris Reed. Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. In ICAIL ’07, pages 225–230, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM Press. [13] Cornelis van Rijsbergen. Information Retrieval. Butterworths, London, 1979. [14] Adam Wyner. Towards annotating and extracting textual legal case elements. Informatica e Diritto: Special Issue on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligent Techniques, 19(1-2):9–18, 2010. [15] AdamWyner,RaquelMochales-Palau, Marie-Francine Moens, and DavidMilward. Approaches totext miningargumentsfromlegalcases. InE.Francesconi,etal.,editors,SPLeT’09,volume6036ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 60–79. Springer, 2010. [16] Adam Wyner and Wim Peters. Lexical semantics and expert legal knowledge towards the identification of legal case factors. In R. Winkels, editor, JURIX’10, pages 127–136. IOS Press, 2010. [17] Adam Wyner and Wim Peters. On rule extraction from regulations. In K. Atkinson, editor, JURIX’11, pages 113–122. IOS Press, 2011. [18] Antoinette Muntjewerff, Astrid Jordaans, Rinke Hoekstra, Ronald Leenes. Case analysis and storage environment CASE. In D. Bourcier, editor, JURIX’03, pages 1–10. IOS Press, 2003.

ALA Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures. (1997). Appendix B,
final report to the ALCTS/CCS subject analysis committee. Retrieved November 17,
2005 from
http://www.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/catalogingsection/catcommittees/subjectanaly
sis/subjectrelations/finalreport.htm
Anderson, J. R. (1991). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological
Review, 98(3), 409-429.
Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (1983). What some concepts might
not be. Cognition, 13(3), 263-308.
Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological classification : Principles of categorization of plants
and animals in traditional societies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E., & Raven, P. H. (1973). General principles of classification
and nomenclature in folk biology. American Anthropologist, 75(1), 214-242.
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E., & Raven, P. H. (1966). Folk taxonomies and biological
classification. Science, 154(3746), 273-275.
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E., & Raven, P. H. (1974). Principles of tzeltal plant
classification; an introduction to the botanical ethnography of a mayan-speaking
people of highland chiapas. New York: Academic Press.
Chan, L. M. (1989) “Inter-indexer consistency in subject cataloging”. Information
Technology & Libraries, 8(4), 349-358
28
Connell, T. H. (1995). Subject searching in online catalogs: Metaknowledge used by
experienced searchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
American Society for Information Science, 46(7), 506-518.
Dunlop, C. E. M., & Fetzer, J. H. (1993). Glossary of cognitive science (1st ed.). New
York, N.Y.: Paragon House.
Greenberg, J. (2001). Automatic query expansion via lexical-semantic relationships.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(5),
402-415.
Kay, P. (1971). Taxonomy and semantic contrast. Language, 47(4), 866-887.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things : What categories reveal about the
mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lancaster, F. W. (1986). Vocabulary control for information retrieval (2nd ed.).
Arlington, Va.: Information Resources Press.
Liddy, E. D., Sutton, S. A., Paik, W. Allen, E., Harwell, S. Monsour, M., Turner, A, &
Liddy J. (2001). Breaking the metadata generation bottleneck: preliminary
findings. JCDL 2001: 464.
Mann, Thomas “Is Precoordination Unnecessary in LCSH? Are Web Sites More
Important to Catalog than Books? : A Reference Librarian’s Thoughts on the
Future of Bibliographic Control” Proceedings of the Bicentennial Conference on
Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium : Confronting the Challenges of
Networked Resources and the Web, Washington, D.C., Nov. 15-17, 2000,
sponsored by the Library of Congress Cataloging Directorate, edited by Ann M.
Sandberg-Fox. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Cataloging Distribution
Service, 2001 http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/mann_paper.pdf
29
Mathes, A. 2005 Academic Works: Computer Mediated Communication. Folksonomies –
Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata:
http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated
communication/folksonomies.html Accessed 11/01/2005
National Information Standards Organization Z39.19 Committee. (2005). ANSI/NISO
Z39.19 -2005 guidelines for the construction, format, and management of
monolingual controlled vocabularies. Retrieved November 17, 2005 from
http://www.niso.org/standards/standard_detail.cfm?std_id=814
Rosch, Eleanor. 1981. Prototype classification and logical classification: Two systems.
New trends in cognitive representation: Challenges to Piaget’s theory, ed. by E.
Scholnick, 73-86. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rosch, E., Lloyd, B. B., & Social Science Research Council. (1978). Cognition and
categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.; New York: L. Erlbaum Associates; distributed by
Halsted Press.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure
of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
Rosenfeld L, 2005 Metadata Ecologies:
http://www.louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/000330.html Accessed
11/15/2005
Ross, B. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1999). . Cognitive Psychology, 38(4), 495-553.
Russell, T. (2005). Contextual authority tagging: Cognitive authority through
folksonomy. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved 11/16/2005, from
http://www.terrellrussell.com/projects/contextualauthoritytagging/conauthtag2005
05.pdf
30
Shirky, C. 2005. Clay Shirky’s Writings About the Internet. Ontology is Overrated:
Categories, Links, and Tags: http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html
Accessed 11/01/2005
Timmerman, F. (2005). Delicious.Py. World Wide Web: . Retrieved July 10 2005, from
http://delicious-py.berlios.de/
UNC School of Information and Library Science. (2005). SILS course descriptions.
Retrieved November 16, 2005 from
http://sils.unc.edu/programs/courses/descriptions.html#151
Vakkari, P. (2002). Subject knowledge, source of terms, and term selection in query
expansion: An analytical study. Proceedings of the 24th BCS-IRSG european
colloquium on IR research, 110-123.
Vander Wal, T. (2005a). Explaining and showing broad and narrow folksonomies.
Retrieved November 16, 2005 from
http://www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php?blog=1635

E. de Maat and R. Winkels. Categorisation of Norms. In: A. Lodder and L. Mommers (Eds.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2007, pages 79-88. IOS Press, 2007. [2] E. de Maat, R. Winkels and T. van Engers (in press). Making Sense of Legal Texts. To appear in G. Grewendorf & M. Rathert (eds), Formal Linguistics and Law. Mouton, De Gruyter, Berlin, 30 pages. Series for the volume Trends in Linguistics – Studies and Monographs (TiLSM). [3] E. de Maat, R. Winkels, and T. van Engers. Automated detection of reference structures in law. In T. van Engers (ed), Proceedings of JURIX 2006, pages 41-50, IOS Press, 2006. [4] E. de Maat. Natural Legal Modelling. Master’s thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, 2003. [5] Aanwijzigingen voor de regelgeving. Circulaire van de Minister-President. Original in Staatscourant 1992, 230. Last modification in Staatscourant 2005, 58. [6] M. Franssen. Automated Detection of Norm Sentences in Laws. Twente Student Conference on IT, 2007. [7] T.M. van Engers, P.J.M. Kordelaar, J. Den Hartog, and E. Glassée. POWER: Programme for an ontology based working environment for modeling and use of regulations and legislation. In: Tjoa, Wagner and Al-Zobaidie, editors, Proceedings of the 11th workshop on Databases and Expert Systems Applications (IEEE), pages 327-334, Greenwich London, 2000. [8] C.D. Nanning and H. Schütze. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA), 1999. [9] M.-F. Moens. Innovative techniques for legal text retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 9(1), pages 29-57, 2001. [10] C. Biagioli, E. Francesconi, A. Passerini, S. Montemagni and C. Soria. Automatic semantics extraction in law documents. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL ’05), pages 133-140, ACM Press, New York, 2005. [11] T. Gonçalves, P. Quaresma. Is linguistic information relevant for the classification of legal texts? In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL ’05), pages 168-176, ACM Press, New York, 2005.