DESC:SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AN AUTOMATED INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL REGULATIONS ,CLAIMS:1. A computer implemented method for interpreting legal regulations, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of legal regulations;
deconstructing the plurality of legal regulations to form a computer interpretable regulation repository based on at least one of a regulatory rule model and Minsky’s frames, wherein deconstructing the plurality of legal regulations based on the regulatory rule model comprises identifying at least one of rule intent patterns, legal registers, and regulatory adjuvants associated with each of the plurality of legal regulations, wherein the rule intent pattern is a syntactic representation of a legal regulation; and deconstructing the plurality of legal regulations based on Minsky’s Frames comprises representing the plurality of legal regulations in slots provided by data structure;
identifying plurality of rule intents contained in each of the deconstructed plurality of legal regulations, wherein a rule intent is a constraint in each of the plurality of legal regulations; and
classifying the plurality of legal regulations into at least one rule act based on the identified rule intents, wherein a rule act is a cluster of frequently co-occurring rule intents in the plurality of legal regulations.
2. The computer implemented method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the identifying of the rule intent patterns is based on determination of at least one of Part of Speech (POS) tags, keywords, and wildcard characters, and wherein the identifying of the regulatory adjuvants includes determination of at least one of an amendment adjuvant, an applicability adjuvant, a definition adjuvant, and a reference adjuvant.
3. The computer implemented method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a legal regulation for interpretation;
deconstructing the legal regulation based on at least one of the regulatory rule model and Minsky’s frames;
identifying rule intents contained in the legal regulation based on at least one of the rule intent patterns, the legal registers and the regulatory adjuvants associated with the legal regulation;
comparing the rule intents contained in each of the plurality of legal regulations with the rule intent clusters in the computer interpretable regulation repository to generate relevance scores, wherein each relevance score is indicative of commonality of rule intents of the legal regulation and each of the legal regulation within the computer interpretable regulation repository ; and
classifying the legal regulation into the at least one rule act based on the relevance scores.
4. The computer implemented method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the relevance scores are generated based on rule intents identified to be common between the received legal regulation and those in the computer interpretable regulations repository.
5. The computer implemented method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving at least one software requirement;
deconstructing the at least one software requirement based on at least one of a regulatory rule model and Minsky’s frames;
identifying rule intents contained in the at least one software requirement based on rule intent patterns contained in at least one software requirement;
comparing the rule intents contained in the at least one software requirement with the rule intents contained in the legal regulations within the computer interpretable regulation repository ; and
tracing at least one legal regulation from amongst the computer interpretable regulation repository to the at least one software requirement based on the comparing.
6. The computer implemented method as claimed in claim 5, wherein the comparing generates similarity scores, and wherein each similarity score is indicative of commonality of rule intents between each of the at least one software requirement and each legal regulation within the computer interpretable regulation repository.
7. A regulation interpretation system (102) for interpreting legal regulations, comprising:
a processor (109);
a deconstructing module (118) coupled to the processor (109)is to:
receive a plurality of legal regulations; and
deconstruct the plurality of legal regulations to form a computer interpretable regulation repository (108) based on at least one of a regulatory rule model and Minsky’s frames, wherein deconstructing the plurality of legal regulations based on the regulatory rule model comprises identifying at least one of rule intent patterns, legal registers, and regulatory adjuvants associated with each of the plurality of legal regulations, wherein the rule intent pattern is a syntactic representation of a legal regulation; and deconstructing the plurality of legal regulations based on Minsky’s Frames comprises representing the plurality of legal regulations in slots provided by data structure; and
an analysis module (120) coupled to the processor (109) is to identify plurality of rule intents contained in each of the plurality of deconstructed legal regulations, wherein a rule intent is a constraint in any legal regulation; and
a classification module (122) coupled to the processor (109) is to classify the plurality of legal regulations into at least one rule act based on the identified rule intents, wherein a rule act is a cluster of frequently co-occurring rule intents in the plurality of legal regulations
8. The regulation interpretation system (102) as claimed in claim 7, wherein the deconstructing module (118) identifies the rule intent patterns based on determination of at least one of Part of Speech (POS) tags, keywords, and wildcard characters, and wherein the deconstructing module (118) identifying of the regulatory adjuvants is based on determination of at least one of an amendment, an applicability, a definition, and a reference.
9. The regulation interpretation system (102) as claimed in claim 7, wherein:
the deconstructing module (118) is to further:
receive a legal regulation for interpretation; and
deconstruct the legal regulation based on at least one of a regulatory rule model and Minsky’s frames;
the analysis module (120) is to further:
identify rule intents applicable to the legal regulation based on at least one of rule intent patterns, legal registers and regulatory adjuvants associated with the legal regulation; and
comparing the rule intents contained in each of the plurality of legal regulations with the rule intent clusters in the computer interpretable regulation repository (108) to generate relevance scores, wherein each relevance score is indicative of commonality of rule intents of the legal regulation and each of the legal regulation within the computer interpretable regulation repository ; and; and
the classification module (122) is to further classify the legal regulation into the at least one rule act based on the relevance scores.
10. The regulation interpretation system (102) as claimed in claim 7, wherein
the deconstructing module (118) is to further:
receive at least one software requirement; and
deconstruct the at least one software requirement based on at least one of a regulatory rule model and Minsky’s frames;
the analysis module (120) is to further:
identify rule intents applicable to the at least one software requirement based on the rule intent patterns contained in the at least one software requirement; and
compare the rule intents contained in the at least one software requirement with the rule intents contained in the legal regulations within the computer interpretable regulation repository (108); and
a traceability module (124) to trace at least one legal regulation from amongst the computer interpretable regulation repository (108) to the at least one software requirement based on the comparing.
11. The regulation interpretation system (102) as claimed in claim 10, wherein the traceability module (124) generates similarity scores upon comparing, and wherein each similarity score is indicative of commonality of rule intents between each of the at least one software requirement and each legal regulation within the computer interpretable regulation repository (108).
12. The regulation interpretation system (102) as claimed in claim 10, wherein the traceability module (124) further annotates the at least one software requirement to the applicable at least one legal regulation.
13. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for interpreting legal regulations to executable by a processor resource to:
receive a plurality of legal regulations;
deconstruct the plurality of legal regulations to form a computer interpretable regulation repository based on at least one of a regulatory rule model and Minsky’s frames, wherein deconstructing the plurality of legal regulations based on the regulatory rule model comprises identifying at least one of rule intent patterns, legal registers, and regulatory adjuvants associated with each of the plurality of legal regulations, wherein the rule intent pattern is a syntactic representation of a legal regulation; and deconstructing the plurality of legal regulations based on Minsky’s Frames comprises representing the plurality of legal regulations in slots provided by data structure; and;
identify plurality of rule intents contained in each of the deconstructed plurality of legal regulations, wherein a rule intent is a constraint in each of the plurality of legal regulations; and
classify the plurality of legal regulations into at least one rule act based on the identified rule intents, wherein a rule act is a cluster of frequently co-occurring rule intents in the plurality of legal regulations.
14. The non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claim 13, wherein the instructions are to further:
receive at least one software requirement;
deconstruct the at least one software requirement based on at least one of a regulatory rule model and Minsky’s frames;
identify rule intents contained in the at least one software requirement based on rule intent patterns contained in the at least one software requirement;
compare the rule intents contained in the at least one software requirement with the rule intents contained in the legal regulations within the computer interpretable regulation repository ; and
trace at least one legal regulation from amongst the computer interpretable regulation repository to the at least one software requirement based on the comparing.