Abstract
In the E-POWER project relevant tax legislation and business processes are modelled in UML to improve the speed and efficiency with which the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration can implement decision support systems for internal use and for its clients. These conceptual models have also proven their usefulness for efficient and effective analysis of draft legislation. We are currently researching whether conceptual modeling can also be used to compare ‘similar’ legislation from different jurisdictions. Better insight in the process of modeling and comparing legislation from different legislators is expected to improve the capacity of the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration to react to future consequences of increased movement of people, products, and money between EU member states and increased harmonization between tax authorities in Europe. In addition, the discovery of the requirements of comparing models is also expected to result in a more principled, more robust, and language-independent methodology for modeling legislation. This paper discusses known problems and requirements of comparing legislation, and the expected results of comparing models of legislation.
The original version of this chapter was revised: The copyright line was incorrect. This has been corrected. The Erratum to this chapter is available at DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-35127-6_28
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
T. Bench-Capon and G. Sartor. Using values and theories to resolve disagreement in law. In J.A. Breuker, R. Leenes, and R.G.F. Winkels, editors, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX-2000), Amsterdam, 2000. IOS Press. ISBN 1.58603.144.9.
A. Boer. MILE: Turning Legal Information into Legal Advice. In A.M. Tjoa and R.R. Wagner, editors, Proceedings of the Twelfth International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA), pages 787–791, Los Alamitos (CA), 2001. IEEE Computer Society.
Alexander Boer, Rinke Hoekstra, and Radboud Winkels. METALex: Legislation in XML. In A. Daskalopulu T. Bench-Capon and R. Winkels, editors, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference., pages 1–10, Amsterdam, 2002. IOS Press.
D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, and M. Lenzerini. A framework for ontology integration, 2001.
S. Cranefield and M. Purvis. Uml as an ontology modelling language, 1999.
N. den Haan and J. Breuker. Constructing Normative Rules. In Proceedings of JURIX’96, pages 135–147, 1996.
Jon Doyle and Michael P. Wellman. Representing preferences as ceteris paribus comparatives. In Decision-Theoretic Planning: Papers from the 1994 Spring AAAI Symposium, pages 69–75. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California, 1994.
Ewald Engelen. Financialization, Pension Restructuring, and the Logic of Funding. In Proceeedings of SASE 2002, 2002.
A. Gangemi, D. M. Pisanelli, and G. Steve. A formal Ontology Framework to Represent Norm Dynamics. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Legal Ontologies (LEGONT), 2001.
Walter Hettich and Stanley L. Winer. Economic and political foundations of tax structure. American Economic Review, 78(4):701–712, 1988.
Walter Hettich and Stanley L. Winer. Rules, Politics, and the Normative Analysis of Taxation. Carleton Economic Papers 00-12, Carleton University, 2000.
Ian Horrocks and Sergio Tessaris. A conjunctive query language for description logic aboxes. In AAAI/IAAI, pages 399–404, 2000.
Murk Muller. The RDF Dictionary and the standardisation process in the legal domain. In Proceedings of XML Europe, 2002.
H. Pinto, A. Prez, and J. Martins. Some issues on ontology integration, 1999.
E. Rissland and T. Friedman. Detecting change in legal concepts. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-99), pages 127–136, New York (NY), 1995. ACM.
Silvie Spreeuwenberg, Tom van Engers, and Rik Gerrits. The Role of Verification in Improving the Quality of Legal Decisionmaking. In Bart Verheij, Arno Lodder, Ronald Loui, and Antoinette Muntjewerff, editors, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX-2001), pages 1–16, Amsterdam, 2001. IOS Press. ISBN 1.58603.201.1.
Andre Valente. Legal Knowledge Engineering: A Modeling Approach. PhD thesis, Amsterdam, 1995.
Andre Valente and Joost Breuker. ON-LINE: An architecture for modelling legal information. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-1995), pages 307–315, 1995.
C.J.P. van Laer. The Applicability of Comparative Concepts. European Journal of Comparative Law, 2.2, 1998.
R.G.F. Winkels, D. Bosscher, A. Boer, and J.A. Breuker. Generating Exception Structures for Legal Information Serving. In Th.F. Gordon, editor, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-99), pages 182–195, New York (NY), 1999. ACM.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Boer, A., van Engers, T. (2003). A Knowledge Engineering Approach to Comparing Legislation. In: Wimmer, M.A. (eds) Knowledge Management in Electronic Government. KMGov 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2645. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44836-5_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44836-5_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-40145-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44836-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive