On the other hand, teaching computers to parse pointless variations of the same substantive terms in legalese accommodates bad practice, instead of correcting it. It's symptomatic treatment at best, enablement at worst.
Lawyers shouldn't be sending and receiving a thousand different NDAs for the same fundamental deal. They should be defining and evolving a shared vocabulary of common forms, and invoking them whenever cost-benefit favors a standard.
That's the idea behind a very recent project of mine, The Canting Tribe NDA:
It's a "viral" NDA. The website publishes a versioned form. The form includes a signed certificate guaranteeing that the proposal is identical to the version published on the site. On the site, newcomers see a list of firms using and accepting the form. The experience shows, rather than tells, how standardization can work.
I soft launched the project just a couple weeks ago. A couple firms signed on almost immediately. Several more are reviewing. My top priority is more firms on the website. Once the site provides enough baseline social proof, the form can spread word and create new users on its own.