第五章 我國裁判書內容分析與詮釋資料
6.3 後續研究建議
本 研 究 所 建 議 的 進 階 詮 釋 資 料 格 式 之 欄 位 ， 除 caseMetadata 的 少 部 分 及 documentBody 欄位一定需要專家確認或著錄外，其餘資料應可以透過程式，經由機器 學習之訓練辨認出固定格式而取得，因此，未來之研究方向亦可朝向此類研究進行，俾 使過往裁判書之資料，可透過自動化程式結構化。
未來如果可以加強資料探勘的技術，分析各項欄位之關連，可將裁判書中各類影響 判決之因素解析之，可做為法官裁判上依據，甚至可為立法之參考。
參考文獻
[1] 林嘉敏，卜小蝶，「司法官對法律文獻資源之資訊行為探究」，圖書資訊學 刊，第二卷第三期，59-80 頁，民國 93 年 12 月。
[2] 陳計男，「民事判決書製作合理化之芻議-以第一審判決書為中心」，民事訴 訟法之研討(十)，二版，頁 13-15，三民，台北市，2006 年 12 月。
[3] 鄭玉波著，法學緒論，黃宗樂修訂，三民，台北市，民國 92 年。
[4] 黃茂榮，「論法源」，收錄於法學方法與現代民法，五版，植根，台北市，
民國 96 年 4 月。
[5] 林子儀，釋字五七六號解釋協同意見書，司法院，台北市，民國 92 年 10 月。
[6] Sherry L. Vellucci. ”Metadata and Authority Control”, Library Resources &
Technical Services, 44, no.1, pp.33-43, Jan. 2000.
[7] 余顯強，「以資訊處理觀點，論 Metadata 本質與意涵」，教育資料與圖書館 學，45 卷 2 期，249-266 頁，民國 96 年 12 月。
[8] Craig A.N. Soules, Garth R. Goodson, John D. Strunk, Gregory R. Ganger.
"Metadata Efficiency in Versioning File Systems", 2nd USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST), San Francisco, California, March 31–April 2, 2003.
[9] J. R. Smith, S.F. Chang. “Tools and techniques for color image retrieval”, In Symposium on Elecironic Imaging: Science and Technology- Storage ~ Retrieval for Image and Video Databases IV, volume 2670, San Jose, CA, February 1996.
[10] Dave Deniman, etc. "Merging Metadata and Content-Based Retrieval", Journal
of Digital Information, Vol 4, No 3, 2004.
[11] 顏嘉惠，「特殊主題資訊之 Metadata 比較研究」，輔仁大學，碩士論文，民 87 年 6 月。
[12] 陳雪華，「台灣地區數位化典藏與資源組織相關計畫之發展」，圖書資訊學 刊，16 期，49-65 頁，民國 90 年 11 月。
[13] 中央研究院數位典藏國家型科技計畫後設資料工作組及國立台灣師範大學 圖書資訊學研究所研譯，CNS 國家標準草案：都柏林核心集，最後檢索日 期：2009-05-26，網址：http://metadata.teldap.tw/project/filebox/ BSMI/DC.pdf。
[14] Sanda Erdelez, Sheila O’Hare. “Legal Informatics: Application of Information Technology in Law”, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 32, pp.367-402, 1997.
[15] (德) Maximilia Herberger，”法資訊學的發展有助提升正義嗎?”，廖緯民譯，
植根雜誌，15 卷 7 期，35-44 頁，1999 年。
[16] (日)夏井高人, “法情報学への抱負.” Last retrieved Apr. 3, 2010, from http://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~sumwel_h/essay/ jd1999-01.htm.
[17] Nicola Lucchi. ” About legal informatics.” Last retrieved July. 10, 2010, from http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lucchi/legalinformatics.htm.
[18] M. Biasiotti et al.” Legal Informatics and Management of Legislative Documents.” Last retrieved Apr. 13, 2010, from
http://www.ictparliament.org/resources/WP002_ legislativeinformatics.pdf.
[19] Carole D. Hafner. "Legal Reasoning Models." Last retrieved Apr. 13, 2010, from http://www.buscalegis.ccj.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/buscalegis/article/
viewFile/6576/6143
[20] 陳顯武，陳世昌，「法資訊學上法本體論研究的興起與發展之分析-一個基
本哲學概念意義之轉換」，台大法學論叢，33 卷 5 期，1-49 頁，民國 93 年 6 月。
[21] 陳起行，臺灣法律資料庫實證研究。最後檢索日期：2009-05-30，網址：
http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/4344。
[22] 黃富章，「我國法學資料庫內容及使用之研究」，國立臺灣大學，碩士論文，
民國 85 年。
[23] William P. Statsky, R. John Wernet. “Case analysis and fundamentals of legal writing” 4th edition, West Publishing, 1994.
[24] Paul Norman. "The Big Match – Lexis v Westlaw", Legal Information Management, 4, pp. 90–97, 2004.
[25] John Barker. "Legal Publishing in the United States: How to Mitigate the Risks of Full-Text Searching - LexisNexis, Westlaw and Findlaw", Australian Law Librarian Vol.11, Iss. 2, pp.110-120, 2003.
[26] 吳建輝，「從歐洲法院與會員國法院的互動看法院在區域統合的角色」，國 立臺灣大學，碩士論文，民國 92 年。
[27] Virpi Lyytikäinen, Pasi Tiitinen, Airi Salminen. “Challenges for European Legal Information Retrieval”, Proceedings of the IFIP 8.5 Working Conference on Advances in Electronic Government, pp. 121-132.
[28] Marc van Opijnen. “Finding Case Law on a European Scale-Current Practice and Future Work”, Proceeding of the 2008 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference, pp.43-5, 2008.
[29] Marc van Opijnen. ” Identifiers, Metadata and Document Structures: Essential Ingredients for Inter-European Case Law Search”, European Legal Access
Conference, Paris, 10-12 december 2008.
[30] 同註 21。
[31] (日)石川幹人.”文書検索技術と判例データベース”, 明治大学情報科学セ ンター年報, 第 9 号, 27 頁, 1996 年.
[32] Jean Louis Goutal. “Characteristics of Judicial Style in France, Britain and the USA”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 24, pp.43-72, 1976.
[33] 張靖，吳霞，「民事裁判風格的比較研究」，甘肅政法成人教育學院學報，
56 期，97-99 頁，2005 年 3 月，最後檢索日期：2010-06-26，網址：
http://ezproxy.lib.nctu.edu.tw:2199/ec/ecJnlIntro.aspx?Jnliid=2583
[34] 蘇永欽，「裁判書與社會疏離」，裁判書類通俗化研究彙編，173-257 頁，司 法院秘書處，台北市，民國九十年十二月。
[35] 司法院司法行政廳，裁判書類通俗化研究彙編，司法院秘書處，台北市，
九十年十二月。
[36] 沈允暉，「裁判書公開與個人隱私之探討」，東吳大學，碩士論文，民 98 年 7 月。
[37] Lucille M. Ponte. "Michigan Cyber Court: A Bold Experiment in the
Development of the First Public Virtual Courthouse", North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 4, Iss. 1, pp.51-92, Fall 2002. Last retrieved June 15, 2010, from http://jolt.unc.edu/sites/default/files/ponte_v4.pdf.
[38] A Boer, T van Engers, R Winkels. ”Using Ontologies for Comparing and Harmonizing Legislation”, Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, 2003.
[39] 陳起行，「德國法資訊學」，法學叢刊，第 46 卷第 2 期，pp. 79-85，2001。
[40] Felix Zimmermann. “jurMeta - New Metadata Initiative for Legal Documents “,
Last retrieved May 30, 2010, from http://blog.law.cornell.edu/voxpop/
2010/04/30/ jurmeta-new-metadata-initiative-for-legal-documents/.
[41] (日)村瀬裕城,”法令文書の XML 文書型定義”, 平成 18 年度電気関係学会 東海支部連合大会謙演論文集, 395, 2006.
[42] 同註 35。
[43] 黃國昌，「刑事第二審制度變革之影響評估」，2008 年司法制度實證研究，
447-495 頁，中央研究院法律學研究所籌備處，台北市，2009 年。
附錄一：PACER 提供資料之欄位
Case Selection Data
Tag Attribute Definition
case caseNumber The case number in the appellate court shortTitle The short title of the appellate case dateFiled The date filed of the appellate case
dateLastDocketEntryThe date the last docket entry was made for the appellate case
origCaseNumber The case number in the originating court origCaseLink The URL to the originating court or case
dateTerminated The date the appellate case was terminated (displays if selected in the search criteria)
party The name of the party (displays if selected in the search criteria)
attorney The attorney for the party (displays if selected in the search criteria)
natureOfSuit The nature of suit of the appellate case (displays if selected in the search criteria)
type The case type of the appellate case (e.g., civil) (displays if selected in the search criteria)
status The status of the appellate case (open or closed) (displays if selected in the search criteria)
Case Query Data
Tag Attribute Definition
associatedCase caseNumber The case number of the associated case shortTitle The short title of the associated case
dateStart The date the case association started dateEnd The date the case association ended status The status of the association (e.g., closed) associatedType The type of the association (e.g.,consolidated) origCase caseNumber The case number in the originating court
caseLink The URL to the originating court or case
leadCaseNumber The case number of the lead or adversary proceeding to
Tag Attribute Definition
which this originating case is associated
dateFiled The date the case was filed in the originating court dateExecution The scheduled date of execution in a death penalty case.
dateJudgment The judgment date of the case in the originating court dateNOAFiled The date the Notice of Appeal was filed in the originating
case
judge The name of the judge in the originating court
courtReporter The name of the court reporter in the originating court party name The name of the party
type The type of the party in both the originating case and the appellate case e.g., defendant-appellee)
dateTerminated The date the party was terminated from the case attorney The attorney representing the party
attorney name The name of the attorney
partyType The type of party that the attorney represents (e.g., appellee) dateRepEnd The date the representation of the party ended
Case Summary Data
Tag Attribute Definition
stub caseNumber The case number in the appellate court shortTitle The short title of the appellate case natureOfSuit The nature of suit of the appellate case dateFiled The date filed of the appellate case
dateTerminated The date the appellate case was terminated origCourt The originating court where the case originated caseType type The case type of the appellate case (e.g., civil)
subType The case subtype of the appellate case (e.g., enforcement) subSubType The case sub-subtype of the appellate case (e.g., social
security)
origCourt district The district of the originating court division The division of the originating court caseNumber The case number in the originating court
leadCaseNumber The case number of the lead or adversary proceeding to which this originating case is associated
dateFiled The date the case was filed in the originating court
Tag Attribute Definition
origDateSet dateJudgment The judgment date of the case in the originating court dateJudgmentEOD The judgment date in the originating case was entered on
the docket
dateNOAFiled The date the Notice of Appeal was filed in the originating case
dateDecided The date the originating case was decided dateRecdCoa The date received in the Appellate court dateSentence The date of sentencing in the originating court origPerson role The role of the originating person (e.g., party)
firstName The first name of the originating person middleName The middle name of the originating person lastName The last name of the originating person generation The generation of the originating person title The title of the originating person
docketText dateFiled The date the docket entry that produced the docket text was filed
text The docket text of the entry that was filed
docLink The hyperlink to the document(s) attached to the docket entry
附錄二：德國法資訊學會之裁判書 DTD
<!-- Saarbruecker XML-Standard fuer gerichtliche Entscheidungen -->
<!-- erarbeitet von Mag. Peter Ebenhoch, Joern Erbguth, Dipl.-Ing. Mag. Felix Gantner und Dr.
Matthias Kraft -->
<!-- verabschiedet im Rahmen des XML-Arbeitskreises beim 9. Deutschen EDV-Gerichtstag 2000 -->
<!-- veroeffentlicht unter der GPL -->
<!-- aktenzeichen: eines oder mehrere?
norm: weitere aufgliederung durch attribut? -->
<!ELEMENT entscheidung (gericht, spruchkoerper?, typ?, datum, aktenzeichen, normen, schlagwoerter?, ((kurztext, text?) | text), fundstelle?, vorinstanz?, entscheidungszitat?, sachgebiet?)>
<!ELEMENT gericht (gerichtstyp, ort?)>
<!ELEMENT ort (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT gerichtstyp (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT spruchkoerper (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT typ (#PCDATA)>
<!-- Als Typ kommen folgende Eintraege in Frage: (urteil | beschluss | vorlagebeschluss | dreierausschuss_beschluss | kammerbeschluss | antrag_auf_vorabentscheidung |
rechtsentscheid_in_mietsachen |entscheidung | auesserung | stellungnahme | gutachten | einstweilige_verfuegung) -->
<!ELEMENT datum (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT aktenzeichen (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT normen (norm+)>
<!ELEMENT norm (normbezeichnung, normuntergliederung?, fassung?)>
<!ELEMENT normbezeichnung (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT normuntergliederung (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT fassung (publikation | datum | (normbezeichnung, datum?, publikation?))>
<!ELEMENT publikation (publikationsorgan, jahr?, nummer?, seite?)>
<!ELEMENT publikationsorgan (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT jahr (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT nummer (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT seite (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT fundstelle (publikation+)>
<!ELEMENT schlagwoerter (schlagwort+)>
<!ELEMENT schlagwort (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT kurztext (kurztexteintrag+)>
<!ELEMENT kurztexteintrag (normen?, text, entscheidungszitat?, schlagwoerter?)>
<!ATTLIST kurztexteintrag id ID #REQUIRED
typ (amtlich | nichtamtlich) #IMPLIED verweis IDREFS #IMPLIED>
<!ELEMENT text (absatz+)>
<!ELEMENT absatz (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST absatz id ID #IMPLIED>
<!ELEMENT vorinstanz (vorinstanzzitat+)>
<!ELEMENT vorinstanzzitat (gericht, datum, aktenzeichen, anmerkung?)>
<!ELEMENT anmerkung (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT entscheidungszitat (zitat+)>
<!ELEMENT zitat (gericht, datum, aktenzeichen, publikation*, anmerkung?)>
<!ATTLIST zitat
zustimmungsmodus (zustimmen | ablehnen) #IMPLIED>
<!ELEMENT sachgebiet (sachgebietseintrag+)>
<!ELEMENT sachgebietseintrag (#PCDATA)>