Computer aided anonymization and redaction of judicial documents

Sladić, Goran; Gostojić, Stevan; Milosavljević, Branko; Konjović, Zora; Milosavljević, Gordana

doi:10.2298/csis140808038s

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Anonymization means deleting or replacing personally identifiable data and redaction means deleting or replacing confidential data. One method for semiautomatic anonymization and redaction of judicial decisions is proposed by Sladić, Gostojić, Milosavljević, Konjović, and Milosavljević, (2016) that uses standardized legal document formats and formalized anonymization rules to facilitate this process. Two other methods for privacy protection, the restricted access and open access procedures, are described in Bargh et al’s (2016) study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Judicial Data: A Comparative Analysis

Marković

Gostojić

2018

Social Science Computer Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open data gained considerable traction in government, nonprofit, and profit organizations in the last several years. Open judicial data increase transparency of the judiciary and are an integral part of open justice. This article identifies relevant judicial data set types, reviews widely used open government data evaluation methodologies, selects a methodology for evaluating judicial data sets, uses the methodology to evaluate openness of judicial data sets in chosen countries, and suggests actions to improve efficiency and effectiveness of open data initiatives. Our findings show that judicial data sets should at least include court decisions, case registers, filed document records, and statistical data. The Global Open Data Index methodology is the most suitable for the task. We suggest considering actions to enable more effective and efficient opening of judicial data sets, including publishing legal documents and legal data in standardized machine-readable formats, assigning standardized metadata to the published documents and data sets, providing both programmable and bulk access to documents and data, explicitly publishing licenses which apply to them in a machine-readable format, and introducing a centralized portal enabling retrieval and browsing of open data sets from a single source.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Judicial Data: A Comparative Analysis

Marković

Gostojić

2018

Social Science Computer Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, legal ontologies, such as those described in Kralingen, (1997), Breuker and Hoekstra (2004), Gangemi (2008), Rubino et al (2006), Breuker et al (2007 and Gostojić et al (2013) can be used to semantically enrich its content, a condition that is a prerequisite for offering semantic services to users. Two such services, retrieval and browsing on the one hand as well as the anonymization, on the other hand, are described in Gostojić et al (2013) and Sladić et al (2016). Retrieval and browsing service uses a formal representation of legal norms contained in the legislation (its content) to offer semantic retrieval and browsing of legislation.…”

Section: Sequentially Effective Versionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multilayer document model for semantic document management services

Sladić

Cverdelj-Fogaraši

Gostojić

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the benefits of an approach in which document management systems (DMSs) are based on a formal and explicit document model, primarily in terms of facilitating domain-specific customization. Design/methodology/approach Within this paper, a generic document model is proposed. The model consists of two layers. A general purpose layer, which represents common features of the documents, and a domain-specific layer, modeling properties particular to application domain. The general purpose layer is based on ISO 82045, providing high degree of interoperability with other systems developed with respect to this set of standard. Findings Splitting document model into the layers enables DMSs to be tailored for each particular domain of application, depending on the general purpose layer. The existence of domain-specific layer allows documents to be interpreted differently in different domains of application. Practical implications In order to enable customization of DMS for a particular domain, the implementation of domain-specific document layer is required. Also, the proposed model does not explicitly deal with document dynamics. Originality/value The proposed document ontology is general enough to provide the representation of documents not depending on a specific scope of application, yet flexible enough to enable extensions through which domain-specific document features can be expressed. The separation of document model enables development of core DMS offering services relying explicitly on the general purpose layer on one hand, as well as domain-specific customization of DMS on the other.

show abstract

Computer aided anonymization and redaction of judicial documents

Cited by 2 publications

References 26 publications

Open Judicial Data: A Comparative Analysis

Open Judicial Data: A Comparative Analysis

Multilayer document model for semantic document management services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About