Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 155–170 | Cite as

Legal ontology of sales law application to ecommerce

Article

Abstract

Legal codes, such as the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) examined in this article, are good points of entry for AI and ontology work because of their more straightforward adaptability to relationship linking and rules-based encoding. However, approaches relying on encoding solely on formal code structure are incomplete, missing the rich experience of practitioner expertise that identifies key relationships and decision criteria often supplied by experienced practitioners and process experts from various disciplines (e.g., sociology, political economics, logistics, operations research). This research focuses on the UCC because it transcends the limitations of a formal code, functioning essentially as a composite. AI work can benefit from real-world codes like the UCC, which are essentially formal codes enlightened from a more realistic experience-base from centuries of development in international commercial transactions settings. This paper then describes our initial work in converting an expert system on the U.S. law governing the sale of goods from Article II of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), into a knowledge-based system using the Web Ontology Language OWL.

Key words

legal ontology uniform commercial code 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aikenhead, M. (1996). The uses and abuses of neural networks in Law 12, Santa Clara High Tech Law Journal.Google Scholar
  2. Aoki, C., Kurematsu, M., and Yamaguchi, T. (1998). LODE: A Legal Ontology Development Environment.Google Scholar
  3. Bagby, J. (1987). Artificial Intelligence in Sales Law: A Decision Analysis Approach to Commercial Transactions, Center for Research, College of Business, The Pennsylvania State University 87–1.Google Scholar
  4. Bagby, J. (2002). e-Commerce Law: Issues for Business.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, B. (1994). Beyond Maccrate: The Role of Context, Experience, Theory and Reflection in Ecological Learning, 36 Arizona Law Review 287.Google Scholar
  6. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., and Lassila, O. (2001). The Semantic Web, in Scientific American.Google Scholar
  7. Biagioli, C. and Turchi, F. (2005). Model and ontology based conceptual searching in legislative XML collections, Presented at ICAIL Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT).Google Scholar
  8. Blackwel, T. F. (1999/2000). Finally Adding Method to Madness: N1 Applying Principles of Object-Oriented Analysis And Design To Legislative Drafting, 3 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub Pol’y 227.Google Scholar
  9. Boella, G. and van der Torre, L. (2005). The Ontologicial Properties of Social Roles: Definitional Dependence, Powers and Roles Playing Roles, Presented at ICAIL Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT), Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
  10. Boer, A., van Engers, T., and Winkels, R. (2005). Normative Statements on the Semantic Web, Presented at ICAIL Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT), Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
  11. Breuker, J. (2004). Constructing a legal core ontology, presented at Workshop on Ontologies and their applications.Google Scholar
  12. Casanovas, P., Casellas, N., Tempich, C., Vrandecic, D., and Benjamins, R. (2005). OPJK modeling methodology, Presented at ICAIL Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT), Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
  13. Debnath, S., Sen, S., and Blackstock, B. (2000). LawBot: A Multiagent Assistant for Legal Research, IEEE Internet Computing 4: 32–37.Google Scholar
  14. Despres, S. and Szulman, S. (2005). Merging of Legal Micro-ontologies from European Directives, Presented at ICAIL Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT), Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
  15. Eriksson, H. (2003). Using JessTab to Integrate Protege and Jess, IEEE Intelligent Systems Journal 43–50.Google Scholar
  16. Gil, R., Garcia, R., and Delgado, J. (2005). An interoperable framework for intellectual property rights using web ontologies, Presented at ICAIL Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT), Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
  17. Gray, P. N. (2005). Ontology and Epistemology in Legal Knowledge Engineering, Presented at ICAIL Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT).Google Scholar
  18. Groothuis, M. M. (2002). Expert Systems in the Field of General Assistance: An Investigation into Juridical Quality, 52 Syracuse Law Review 1269.Google Scholar
  19. Grosof, B. and Poon, T. (2003). SweetDeal: Representing Agent Contracts with Exceptions using XML Rules, Ontologies, and Process Descriptions, Presented at WWW 2003, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  20. Hafner, C. D. (1987). Conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases, Presented at 1st International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL), Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  21. Hassett, P. (2000). Essay: Technology Time Capsule: What does the future hold? 50 Syracuse Law Review 1223.Google Scholar
  22. Hoekstra, R. and Breuker, J. (2005). Processes as Causal Glue in a Framework for Ontology-Based Responsbility Attribution, Presented at ICAIL Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT).Google Scholar
  23. Kabilan, V. and Johannesson, P. (2003). Semantic Representation of Contract Knowledge using Multi-tier Ontology, Presented at The first International Workshop on Semantic Web and Databases (SWDB’03), Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  24. Lachmayer, F. and Hoffman, H. (2005). From Legal Categories toward Legal Ontologies, ICAIL workshop on legal ontologies and artificial intelligence techniques (LOAIT).Google Scholar
  25. Lamkin, B. H. (1994). Comments: Medical Expert Systems and Publisher Liability: A Cross-Contextual Analysis. 43 Emory Law Journal 731.Google Scholar
  26. Levitt, T. S. and Laskey, K. B. (2001). Symposium: From Theory To Practice: “Intelligent” Procedures For Drawing Inferences In Static And Dynamic Legal Environments: Computational Inference For Evidential Reasoning In Support of Judicial Proof, 22 Cardozo Law Review 1691.Google Scholar
  27. Noy, N. F., Sintek, M., Decker, S., Crubezy, M., Fergerson, R. W., and Musen M. A. (2001). Creating Semantic Web Contents with Protégé-2000, IEEE Intelligence Systems 60–71.Google Scholar
  28. Peters, W., Tiscornia, D., and Sagri, M.-T. (2005). The structuring of legal knowledge in LOIS, Presented at ICAIL Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT).Google Scholar
  29. Posner, R. A. (1998). The Jurisprudence of Skepticism,” 86 Michigan Law Review 827.Google Scholar
  30. Rissland, E. L. (1990). Comment: Artificial Intelligence and Law: Stepping Stones to a Model of Legal Reasoning, 99 Yale Law Journal 1957.Google Scholar
  31. Royakkers, L., Grossi, D., and Dignum, F. (2005). Responsibilities in Organizations, Presented at ICAIL Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT), Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
  32. Schweighofer, E. and Liebwald, D. (2005). Advanced Lexical Ontologies and Hybrid Knowledge based systems: first steps to a dynamic legal electronic commentary, Presented at ICAIL Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT).Google Scholar
  33. Shaheed, J., Yip, A., and Cunningham, J. (2005). A top-level language-biased legal ontology, Presented at ICAIL Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information Sciences and TechnologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations