Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 241–277 | Cite as

Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Information Management

Article

Abstract

In this article we describe two core ontologies of law that specify knowledge that is common to all domains of law. The first one, FOLaw describes and explains dependencies between types of knowledge in legal reasoning; the second one, LRI-Core ontology, captures the main concepts in legal information processing. Although FOLaw has shown to be of high practical value in various applied European ICT projects, its reuse is rather limited as it is rather concerned with the structure of legal reasoning than with legal knowledge itself: as many other “legal core ontologies”, FOLaw is therefore rather an epistemological framework than an ontology. Therefore, we also developed LRI-Core. As we argue here that legal knowledge is based to a large extend on common-sense knowledge, LRI-Core is particularly inspired by research on abstract common-sense concepts. The main categories of LRI-Core are: physical, mental and abstract concepts. Roles cover in particular social worlds. Another special category are occurrences; terms that denote events and situations. We illustrate the use of LRI-Core with an ontology for Dutch criminal law, developed in the e-Court European project.

Key words

common-sense ontology legal core ontologies legal reasoning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourrón, C., Bulygin, E. 1971Normative SystemsSpringer-VerlagWienGoogle Scholar
  2. Alchourrón, C. and Bulygin, E. (1981). The Expressive Conception of Norms. In Hilpinen, R. (ed.) New Studies in Deontic Logic, 95–124. D. ReidelGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, J. 1984Towards a General Theory of Action and TimeArtificial Intelligence23123154CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, L. 1997

    The Language of Legal Relations, RLL: Useful in a Legal Ontology Toolkit?

    Visser, P.Winkels, R. eds. Legal Ontologies: Proceedings of the ICAIL-97 workshopACMNew York4760
    Google Scholar
  5. Allen, L. and Saxon, C. (1991). More IA Needed in AI: Interpretation Assistance for Coping with the Problem of Multiple Structural Interpretations. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on AI and Law. 53–61, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Austin, J. (1954). The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. edited by H. L. A. HartGoogle Scholar
  7. Baader, F. and Nutt, W. (2002). Basic Description Logics. In Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D. Nardi, D., and Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.), Description Logic Handbook, 47–100. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Bentham, J. (1970). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: Athlone Press. Edited by J. Burns and H. HartGoogle Scholar
  9. Boer, A. and van Engers, T. (2003). A Knowledge Engineering Approach to Comparing Legislation. In Wimmer, M. (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Knowledge Management in E-Government. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  10. Borst, P., Akkermans, J. M., Top, J. L. 1997Engineering OntologiesInternational Journal of Human Computer Studies46365406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brachman, R., McGuinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P., Resnick, L., and Borgida, A. (1991). Living with CLASSIC: When and How to Use a KL-ONE-like Language. In Sowa, J. (ed.), Principles of Semantic Networks: Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge: 401–456. Morgan Kaufmann. http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/franconi/dl/course/articles/brachman91living.ps.gz.
  12. Bredeweg, B., Struss, P. 2004Current Topics in Qualitative ReasoningAI Magazine241316special issue on Qualitative ReasoningGoogle Scholar
  13. Breuker, J. 1994

    Components of Problem Solving

    Steels, L.Schreiber, G.Velde, W. eds. A Future for Knowledge Acquisition: Proceedings of the EKAW-94, European Knowledge Acquisition WorkshopSpringer VerlagBerlin118136
    Google Scholar
  14. Breuker, J. and den Haan, N. (1991). Separating World and Regulation Knowledge: Where is the Logic?’ In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on AI and Law. Oxford, ACMGoogle Scholar
  15. Breuker, J. and Hoekstra, R. (2004a). Core Concepts of Law: Taking Common-Sense Seriously. In Varzi, A. and Vieu, L. (eds.), Proceedings of Formal Ontologies in Information Systems, FOIS-2004, 210–221. IOS-PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Breuker, J., Hoekstra, R. 2004b

    DIRECT: Ontology-based Discovery of Responsibility and Causality in Legal Cases

    Gordon, T. eds. Proceedings JURIX-2004IOS-PressAmsterdam115126
    Google Scholar
  17. Breuker, J. and Van De Velde, W. (eds.) 1994. CommonKADS Library for Expertise Modeling: Reusable Problem Solving Components. Amsterdam/Tokyo: IOS-Press/OhmshaGoogle Scholar
  18. Brouwer, P. (1990). Samenhang in Recht: een analytische studie (coherence in law). Wolters-NoordhoffGoogle Scholar
  19. Clancey, W. 1985Heuristic ClassificationArtificial Intelligence27289350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Damasio, A. (2003). Looking for Spinoza. PutnamGoogle Scholar
  21. den Haan, N. (1996). Automated Legal Reasoning’. Ph.D. thesis, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  22. Dennett, D. (1987). The Intentional Stance. MIT-PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A. 2003Sweetening WORDNET with DOLCEAI Magazine241324Google Scholar
  24. Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., and Schneider, L. (2002). Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In Gomez-Perez, A. and Benjamins, V. (eds.), Proceedings of the EKAW-2002, 166–181. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  25. Gangemi, A., Sagri, M., and Tiscornia, D. (2005). A Constructive Framework for Legal Ontologies. In Benjamins, V., Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., and Gangemi, A. (eds.), Law and the Semantic Web, 97–124 Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  26. Gruber, T. R. 1993A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology SpecificationsKnowledge Acquisition5199220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hage, J., Verheij, B. 1999The Law as a Dynamic Interconnected System of States of Affairs: A Legal Top OntologyInternational Journal of Human Computer Studies5110341077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamfelt, A. and Barklund, J. (1990). Metaprogramming for Representation of Legal Principles. In Proceedings of Meta’90, 105–122Google Scholar
  29. Hart, H. 1961The Concept of LawClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Hart, H., Honoré, T. 1985Causation in the LawsecondOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Hayes, P. J. 1985a

    Naive Physics I: Ontology for Liquids

    Hobbs, J. R.Moore, R. C. eds. Formal Theories of the Common Sense WorldAblex Publishing CorporationNorwood71108
    Google Scholar
  32. Hayes, P. J. 1985b

    The Second Naive Physics Manifesto

    Hobbs, J. R.Moore, R. C. eds. Formal Theories of the Common Sense WorldAblex Publishing CorporationNorwood136
    Google Scholar
  33. Heijst, G. V., Schreiber, A. T., Wielinga, B. 1997Using Explicit Ontologies for KBS DevelopmentInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies46183292Google Scholar
  34. Hoekstra, R. and Breuker, J. (2006). Commonsense Causal Explanation in a Legal Domain. Artificial Intelligence and Law (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  35. Hofstadter, A., McKinsey, J. 1939On the Logic of ImperativesPhilosophy of Science6446457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hohfeld, W. (1919). Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Legal Reasoning. Yale University Press. Edited by W. W. Cook, fourth printing, 1966Google Scholar
  37. Jansweijer, W., van der Stadt, E., van Lieshout, J., and Breuker, J. (2000). Knowledgeable Information Brokering. In Stanford, B. and Kidd, P. (eds.), E-bussiness: Key Issues, Applications and Technologies. IOS-PressGoogle Scholar
  38. Kashyap, V. and Borgida, A. (2004). Representing the UMLS Semantic Network using OWL. In Fensel, D., Sycara, K., and Mylopoulos, J. (eds.), The Semantic Web – ISCW 2003, 1–16Google Scholar
  39. Kelsen, H. 1991General Theory of NormsClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim, J. (1998). Mind in a Physical World: An Essay on the Mind-Body Problem and Mental Causation. In Representation and Mind. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  41. Kralingen, R. W. V. (1995). Frame-based Conceptual Models of Statute Law. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leiden, The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  42. Lakoff, G. and Núñez, R. (2000). Where Mathematics Comes From. Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  43. Lame, G. (2002). Construction d une ontologie à partir de textes. Une ontologie de droit dédié à la recherche dinformation sur le Web’. Ph.D. thesis, Ecole des Mines, Paris, http://www.cri.ensmp.fr/.Google Scholar
  44. Lame, G. (2004). Using NLP Techniques to Identify Legal Ontology Components: Concepts and Relations. In this volumeGoogle Scholar
  45. Lehmann, J. (2003). Causation in Artificial Intelligence and Law: A Modelling Approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  46. Lehmann, J., Breuker, J., and Brouwer, P. (2005). CAUSATIONT: Causation in AI & Law. In Benjamins, V., Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., and Gangemi, A. (eds.), Law and the Semantic Web, 77–96. Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  47. Masolo, C., Vieu, L., Bottazzi, E., Catenacci, C., Ferrario, R., Gangemi, A., and Guarino, N. (2004). Social Roles and their Descriptions. In Proceedings of Knowledge Representation WorkshopGoogle Scholar
  48. Massolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A., and Schneider, L. (2002). The WonderWeb foundational ontologies: Preliminary Report. Technical Report Deliverable D17, version 2, ISTC-CNR (Italy)Google Scholar
  49. McCarty, T. (1989). A Language for Legal Discourse I. Basic Structures. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on AI and Law, 180–189. Vancouver: ACMGoogle Scholar
  50. McNamara, P. and Prakken, H. (eds.) (1999). Norms, Logics and Information Systems; New Studies in Deontic Logic and Computer Science. Amsterdam: IOS-PressGoogle Scholar
  51. Minsky, M. 1975

    A Framework for Representing Knowledge

    Winston, P. H. eds. The Psychology of Computer VisionMcGraw-HillNew York211277
    Google Scholar
  52. Mommers, L. (2002). Applied Legal Epistemology: Building a Knowledge-based Ontology of the Legal Domain’. Ph.D. thesis, University of LeidenGoogle Scholar
  53. Muntjewerff, A., Breuker, J. A. 2001

    Evaluating PROSA, a system to train legal cases

    Moore, J.Redfield, C.Johnson, L. eds. Artificial Intelligence in EducationIOS-PressAmsterdam278290
    Google Scholar
  54. Pacheco, O., Carmo, J. 2003A Role Based Model for the Normative Specification of Organized Collective Agency and Agents InteractionJournal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems6145184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Patil, R. 1988

    Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Diagnostic Reasoning in Medicine

    Shobe, H.AAAI,  eds. Exploring Artificial Intelligence: Survey Talks from the National Conferences on Artificial Intelligence: Morgan KaufmannSan MateoCalifornia347379
    Google Scholar
  56. Pease, A., Niles, I. 2002IEEE Standard Upper Ontology: A Progress ReportKnowledge Engineering Review176570.Special Issue on Ontologies and AgentsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
  58. Raz, J. 1972Legal Principles and the Limits of LawThe Yale Law Journal81823854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rector, A. (2002). Medical Informatics. In Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., and Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.), Description Logic Handbook, 415–435. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  60. Schank, R., Abelson, R. 1977Scripts, Plans Goals and UnderstandingLawrence ErlbaumNew JerseyGoogle Scholar
  61. Sowa, J. F. 2000Knowledge Representation: Logical Philosophical, and Computational FoundationsBrooks Cole Publishing CoPacific Grove, CAGoogle Scholar
  62. Steimann, F. 2000On the Representation of Roles in Object-Oriented and Conceptual ModellingData and Knowledge Engineering3583106CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. Stevens, R., Wroe, C., Lord, P., and Goble, C. (2004). Ontologies in Bioinformatics. In Staab, S. and Studer, R. (eds.), Handbook of Ontologies, 635–657. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  64. Strawson, P. (1959). Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  65. Tulving, E. (1991). Concepts of Human Memory. In Squire, L., Lynx, G., Weinberger, N., and McGaugh, J. (eds.), Memory: Organization and Locus of Change, 3–32. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  66. Valente, A. 1995Legal Knowledge Engineering: A Modelling ApproachIOS PressAmsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  67. Valente, A. and Breuker, J. (1995). ON-LINE: An Architecture for Modelling Legal Information. In Bench-Capon, T. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 95–104, ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  68. Valente, A., Breuker, J., Brouwer, P. 1999aLegal Modelling and automated reasoning with ON-LINEInternational Journal of Human Computer Studies5110791126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Valente, A., Russ, T., MacGregor, R., Swartout, W. 1999bBuilding, Using, and Reusing an Ontology of Air Campaign PlanningIEEE Intelligent Systems142736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Van Der Velden, W. (1992). Coherence in Law: A Semantic and Deductive Explanation. In Brouwer, B., Hol, T., Soeteman, A., Van Der Velden, W., and De Wild, A. (eds.), Coherence and Conflict in Law. Deventer, Boston/Zwolle, 257–287. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers/W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink. Proceedings of the Third Benelux-Scandinavian Symposium in Legal Theory, January 3–5, 1991, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  71. Van Kralingen, R., Visser, P., Bench-Capon, T., Herik, H. 1999A Principled Approach to Developing Legal Knowledge SystemsInternational Journal of Human Computer Studies5111271154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wegner, D. 2002The Illusion of Conscious WillBradford Books, MIT PressCambridge, Massachusetts/London EnglandGoogle Scholar
  73. West, M. (2004). Some Industrial Experiences in the Development and Use of Ontologies. In Proceedings of EKAW Workshop on Core ontologies. Http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/,CeurGoogle Scholar
  74. Winkels, R., Boer, A., Hoekstra, R. 2002

    CLIME: Lessons Learned in Legal Information Serving

    Harmelen, F. V. eds. Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence-2002, Lyon (F) IOS-PressAmsterdam
    Google Scholar
  75. Winkels, R., Bosscher, D., Boer, A., Breuker, J. 1999

    Generating Exception Structures for Legal Information Serving

    Gordon, T. eds. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-99)ACMNew York182189
    Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joost Breuker
    • 1
  • André Valente
    • 2
  • Radboud Winkels
    • 1
  1. 1.Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of LawUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Knowledge Systems VenturesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations