Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 103–115 | Cite as

Advanced lexical ontologies and hybrid knowledge based systems: First steps to a dynamic legal electronic commentary

  • Erich Schweighofer
  • Doris Liebwald
Article

Abstract

Legal Information Retrieval (IR) research has stressed the fact that legal knowledge systems should be sufficiently capable to interpret and handle the semantics of a database. Modeling (expert-) knowledge by using ontologies enhances the ability to extract and exploit information from documents. This contribution presents theories, ideas and notions regarding the development of dynamic electronic commentaries based on a comprehensive legal ontology.

Keywords

AI & law electronic commentary EWN information retrieval knowledge based system legal ontology lexical database LOIS thesaurus WordNet 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Visser, P. R. S. (1997). Ontologies in Legal Information Systems: The Need for Explicit Specifications of Domain Conceptualisations. In Proceedings of The 6th ICAIL (Melbourne, AU, 1997), 132–141. ACM Press: New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  2. Benjamins, R. et␣al. (2005) Law and the Semantic Web, an Introduction. In Benjamins, V. R. et␣al. (eds.), Law and the Semantic Web, 1–17. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, DEGoogle Scholar
  3. Berners-Lee T. et␣al. (2001) The Semantic Web. Scientific American vol. 284, Scientific American Inc, New York, NY pp 34–43Google Scholar
  4. Boer, A. et␣al. (2005). Normative Statements on the Semantic Web. IAAIL workshop series: LOAIT 2005 (Bologna, IT). Wolf Legal Publishers: Nijmegen, NLGoogle Scholar
  5. Breuker, J. (2005). Use and Reuse of Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Information Management. In Benjamins, V. R. et␣al. (eds.), Law and the Semantic Web, 36–64. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, DEGoogle Scholar
  6. Breuker, J. and Hoekstra, R. (2004). DIRECT: Ontology-based Discovery of Responsibility and Causality in Legal Case Descriptions. In Proceedings of The 17th JURIX (Berlin, DE, 2004), 59–68. IOS Press: Amsterdam et␣al., NLGoogle Scholar
  7. Brüninghaus, S. and Ashley, K. D. (2001). Improving the Representation of Legal Case Texts with Information extraction Methods. In Proceedings of The 8th ICAIL (St. Louis, MO, 2001), 42–51. ACM Press: New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  8. Dini et␣al. (2005). Cross-lingual information retrieval using a WordNet architecture. In␣Proceedings of The 10th ICAIL (Bologna, IT, 2005), 163–167. ACM Press: New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  9. van Engers, T. M. et␣al. (2001). POWER: Using UML/OCL for Modeling Legislation – an application report. In Proceedings of The 8th ICAIL (St. Louis, MO, 2001), 157–167. ACM Press: New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  10. Fellbaum C. (ed) (1998) WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press: Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Fensel D. (2004) Ontologies: A Silver Bullet for Knowledge Management and electronic Commerce (2nd edn.). Springer: Berlin et␣al., DEGoogle Scholar
  12. Gangemi, A. et␣al. (2002). Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE. In Proceedings of The 13th EKAW (Sigüenza, ES, 2002). Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 2473, 166–181. Springer: London, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Gangemi A. et␣al (2003) Sweetening WORDNET with DOLCE. AI Magazine archive vol 24/3. AAAI: Menlo Park, CA pp 13–24Google Scholar
  14. Gruber T. R. (1993) A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition vol 5/2. Academic Press: London et␣al., Uk pp 199–220Google Scholar
  15. Gruber T. R. (1992) ONTOLINGUA: A Mechanism to Support Portable Ontologies. Knowledge System Laboratory: Stanford University, CAGoogle Scholar
  16. Hachey, B. and Grover, C. (2004). A Rhetorical Status Classifier for Legal Text Summarisation. In Proceedings of The ACL-04 Text Summarization Branches Out Workshop (Barcelona, ES, 2004), pp. 35–42Google Scholar
  17. Herrestad H. (1996) Formal Theories of Rights. Juristforbundets Forlag: Oslo, NOGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirst G. (2004) Ontology and the Lexicon. In:Staab S., Studer R. (eds) Handbook on Ontologies. Springer: Berlin-Heidelberg, DE pp 210–229Google Scholar
  19. Hohfeld W. N. (1919) Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Legal Reasoning. Yale University: CT, 1919(reprint Dartmouth: NH, 2001)Google Scholar
  20. Kehlsen H. (1960) Reine Rechtslehre (Pure Theory of Law) 2nd edn. Springer: Vienna, ATGoogle Scholar
  21. Kohonen T. (1995) Self-organizing Maps. Springer: Berlin, DEGoogle Scholar
  22. Koivunen, M.-R. and Miller, E. (2002). W3C Semantic Web Activity. In Proceedings of The Semantic Web Kick-off Seminar (Helsinki, FI, 2001). HIIT Publications 2002/1, 27–43. Helsinki, FI. Freely available at <www.w3.org/2001/12/semweb-fin/w3csw>Google Scholar
  23. van Kralingen, R. W. (1995). Frame-based Conceptual Models of Staute Law. Ph.D. diss, University of Leiden: The Hague, NLGoogle Scholar
  24. Luhmann N. (1993) Law As a Social System. Oxford Socio-Legal Studies. Oxford University Press: UK, 2004 (original German edition: Suhrkamp, Frankfurt aM, DE, 1993)Google Scholar
  25. McCarty, L. T. (1989). A Language for Legal Discourse: I. Basic Features. In Proceedings of The 2nd ICAIL (Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1989), 180–189. ACM Press: New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, G. A. et␣al. (1990). Five Papers on WordNet. CSL Report 43, Cognitive Science Laboratory, Princeton University, NJ. Freely available at <ftp://ftp.cogsci.princeton.edu/pub/wordnet/5papers.ps>Google Scholar
  27. Moens, M.-F. et␣al. (1997). Abstracting of Legal Cases: The SALOMON Experience. Proceedings of The 6th ICAIL (Melbourne, Australia, 1997), 114–122. ACM Press: New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  28. Sagri, M.-T. et␣al. (2004). Jur-WordNet. In Proceedings of The GWC (Brno, CZ, 2004), 305–310. Masaryk University: Brno, CZGoogle Scholar
  29. Schweighofer, E. et␣al. (2002). Improvement of Vector Representation of Legal Documents with Legal Ontologies. In Proceedings of The 5th BIS (Poznan, PL, 2002). Poznan University of Economics Press: Poznan, PLGoogle Scholar
  30. Schweighofer, E. et␣al. (2001). Automatic Text Representation, Classification and Labeling in European Law. In Proceedings of The 8th ICAIL (St. Louis, Missouri, 2001), 78–87. ACM Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  31. Schweighofer E. (1999) Legal Knowledge Representation, Automatic Text Analysis in Public International and European Law. Law and Electronic Commerce vol. 7. Kluwer Law: International, The Hague, NLGoogle Scholar
  32. Schweighofer, E. and Winiwarter, W. (1993). Legal Expert System KONTERM – Automatic Representation of Document Structure and Contents. In Proceedings of The 4th DEXA (Prague, Czech Republic, 1993), 486–497. Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 720. Springer: Heidelberg, DEGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, J. C. et␣al (1995). Artificial Intelligence and Legal Discourse: The Flexlaw Legal Text Management System. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3(1–2): 55–95. Kluwer: Dordrecht et␣al., NL Google Scholar
  34. Stamper, R. K. (1991). The Role of Semantics in Legal Expert Systems and Legal Reasoning. Ratio Juris 4(2): 219–244. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK Google Scholar
  35. The Economist (2004). Living dangerously, A survey of risk. London, UK, January 24th 2004Google Scholar
  36. Valente A. (2005) Types and Roles of Legal Ontologies. In Benjamins V. R. et␣al (eds) Law and the Semantic Web. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, DE pp 65–76Google Scholar
  37. Valente A. (1995) Legal knowledge engineering: A modelling approach. IOS Press: Amsterdam, NLGoogle Scholar
  38. Visser P. R. S. (1995) Knowledge Specification for Multiple Legal Tasks: A Case Study of the Interaction Problem in the Legal Domain. Computer Law Series vol. 17. Kluwer Law International: The Hague, NLGoogle Scholar
  39. Vossen, P. (ed.) (1993). EuroWordNet General Document (LE2-4003, LE4-8328). Final Document (Version 3). Freely available at: <www.illc.uva.nl/EuroWordNet/docs.html>Google Scholar
  40. Winkels, R. et␣al. (2002). CLIME: Lessons Learned in Legal Information Serving. In Proceedings of The 15th ECAI (Lyon, France, 2002), 230–234. IOS-Press: Amsterdam et␣al., NLGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Group on Computers and Law, Wiener Zentrum für RechtsinformatikUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations