No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2019
Accessing legal information is a primary requirement for a variety of communities: ordinary citizens, scholars, and professionals. The dissemination of legal information contributes to the rule of law and to the overall ideals of democracy in a number of ways. Many are the benefits of accessing legal information, such as the awareness of the applicable rule of law, the creation of conditions necessary to the equality and fairness of a legal system, while improving the functioning of democratic institutions, the development and improvement of social and economic conditions.
4 Ciampi C. et al. 2000. “Introduzione al progetto Norme in rete.” Informatica e diritto. 1:1–200 Google Scholar
5 Cherubini M. 2002. “Verso l'armonizzazione dei portali pubblici: il Portale nazionale Italia.gov.it e Norme in Rete”. Informatica e diritto. 1:47–110.Google Scholar
6 Spinosa P. 2001. “Assegnazione dei nomi uniformi ai documenti giuridici”. Informatica e diritto. 1: 233–264.Google Scholar
9 Peruginelli G. 2002. “L'accesso alla dottrina giuridica: strumenti e linee di sviluppo in rete.” Informatica e diritto. 1:111–176.Google Scholar
11 The most important and highly used services are Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw, which are world wide, on charge accessible databases containing TOCs, abstracts, and digital texts, whose size is growing progressively.Google Scholar
15 Francesconi E., Peruginelli G. 2003 “Integration between structured repositories and web documents.” Proceedings of the DC Conference 2003. 99–107.Google Scholar
16 OAI – The Open Archives Initative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting, http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.htm Google Scholar
17 Francesconi E., Peruginelli G. 2005. “Retrieval of Italian legal literature: a case of semantic search using legal vocabulary.” Proceedings of the DC Conference.Google Scholar
18 Jacobson T., Fusani D. 1992. “Computer, System, and Subject Knowledge in novice searching of a full-text, multifiles database.” Library & Information Science Research. 4(1):97–106.Google Scholar
19 See, for example, Metadata: UKOLN software tools. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/software-tools/ Google Scholar
20 Francesconi E, Peruginelli G. 2004. “Opening the legal literature Portal to multilingual access.” Proceedings of the DC Conference 2004. 100–107.Google Scholar
21 J. Kerby. 1982. “La traduction juridique, un cas d'espèce, in Jean Claude Gémar (Ed.)”. Langage du droit et traduction, Essais de jurilinguistique Google Scholar
22 Peters C., Picchi E. 1997 “Across languages, across cultures: issues in multilinguality and digital libraries.” D-Lib Magazine, May. Available on http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may97/peters/05peters.html.Google Scholar
23 Mayfield J., McNamee P. 2002. “Three principles to guide CLIR research”. Available on http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/sigir-2002/sigir2002CLIR-18-mayfield.pdf.Google Scholar
25 Oard W. D. 1997. “Alternative approaches for Cross-Language Text Retrieval.” Available on http://www.ee.umd.edu/medlab/filter/sss/papers/oard/paper.html.Google Scholar
26 Van Laer C.J.P. 1998. “The applicability of comparative concepts.” Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 2(2).Google Scholar
27 Sacco R., 1998. “Droit et langue.” Rapports italiens au XV Congrès international de droit comparé.Google Scholar
28 However no modem legal system is a “pure” representation of any type of system; all jurisdictions today represent mixed systems, to some extent.Google Scholar
29 Tunkel V. 1997 “Law finding for lawyers.” The Law Librarian, 28(2):8–10; Leckie G., Pettigrew K. E., and Sylvain C. 1996. “Modelling the information seeking of professionals: a general model derived from research on engineers, healthcare professionals and lawyers.” Library quarterly. 66:161–193; Oppenheim C. 2001. “Judged to be lacking.” Information world review. 169:10.Google Scholar
No CrossRef data available.