Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 83–107 | Cite as

A legal case OWL ontology with an instantiation of Popov v. Hayashi

  • Adam WynerEmail author
  • Rinke Hoekstra
Article

Abstract

The paper provides an OWL ontology for legal cases with an instantiation of the legal case Popov v. Hayashi. The ontology makes explicit the conceptual knowledge of the legal case domain, supports reasoning about the domain, and can be used to annotate the text of cases, which in turn can be used to populate the ontology. A populated ontology is a case base which can be used for information retrieval, information extraction, and case based reasoning. The ontology contains not only elements for indexing the case (e.g. the parties, jurisdiction, and date), but as well elements used to reason to a decision such as argument schemes and the components input to the schemes. We use the Protégé ontology editor and knowledge acquisition system, current guidelines for ontology development, and tools for visual and linguistic presentation of the ontology.

Keywords

Legal case Ontology OWL Case based reasoning 

References

  1. Aleven V, Ashley KD (1995) Doing things with factors In: ICAIL ’95: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, pp 31–41Google Scholar
  2. Antoniou G, van Harmelen F (2004) A semantic web primer. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Antoniou G, Assmann U, Baroglio C, Decker S, Henze N, Patranjan P-L, Tolksdorf R (eds) (2007) Reasoning Web, Third International Summer School 2007, Dresden, Germany, 3-7 September 2007, Tutorial Lectures. Vol 4636 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashley K (1990) Modelling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. Bradford Books/MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashley KD (2009) Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological, and hypothetical legal reasoning. In: ICAIL ’09: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, NY, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  6. Bench-Capon TJM (2002) The missing link revisited: the role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artif Intell Law 10(1-3):79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1-2):97–143zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bench-Capon TJ, Visser PR (1996) Deep models, ontologies and legal knowledge based systems. In: Legal knowledge based systems. JURIX 1996: The Nineth Annual Conference. Tilburg University Press, Tilburg, pp 3–14Google Scholar
  9. Berman D, Hafner C (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In: ICAIL ’93: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, pp 50–59Google Scholar
  10. Breuker J, Valente A, Winkels R (2004) Legal ontologies in knowledge engineering and information management. Artif Intell Law 12(4):241–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brüninghaus S, Ashley KD (1997) Finding factors: learning to classify case opinions under abstract fact categories. In: ICAIL ’97: proceedings of the 6th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, pp 123–131Google Scholar
  12. Brüninghaus S, Ashley K (2005a) Reasoning with textual cases. In: Munzo-Avila H, Ricci F (eds) Proceedings of the International conference on case-based reasoning 2005. No. 3620 in LNAI. Springer, Berlin, pp 137–151Google Scholar
  13. Brüninghaus S, Ashley KD (2005b) Generating legal arguments and predictions from case texts. In: ICAIL 2005. ACM Press, New York, pp 65–74Google Scholar
  14. Chorley A (2007) Reasoning with legal cases seen as theory construction. Ph.D. thesis, University of Liverpool, Department of Computer Science, Liverpool, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Coi JLD, Fuchs NE, Kaljurand K, Kuhn T (2009) Controlled english for reasoning on the semantic web. In: REWERSE. Springer, Berlin, pp 276–308Google Scholar
  16. Costa M, Sousa O, Neves J (1998) An architecture to legal distributed case representation. In: Hage J, Bench-Capon T, Koers A, de Vey Mestdagh C, Grütters C (eds) Legal knowledge based systems: JURIX: The Eleventh ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  17. Daniels JJ, Rissland EL (1997) Finding legally relevant passages in case opinions. In: ICAIL ’97: proceedings of the 6th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, pp 39–46Google Scholar
  18. Dick J (June 1991) Representation of legal text for conceptual retrieval. In: ICAIL’91: proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law. Oxford, pp 244–252Google Scholar
  19. Gangemi A (2007) Trends in Legal Knowledge: The semantic web and the regulation of electronic social systems. European Press Academic Publishing, Ch. Design Patterns for Legal Ontology ConstructionGoogle Scholar
  20. Gangemi A, Sagri M, Tiscornia D (2005) A constructive framework for legal ontologies. In: Benjamins V, Casanovas P, Breuker J, Gangemi A (eds) Law and the semantic web. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–124Google Scholar
  21. Gordon TF (1993) The pleadings game: formalizing procedural justice. In: ICAIL ’93: proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 10–19Google Scholar
  22. Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–15):875–896MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis 5(2):199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guarino N, Welty C (2002) Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean. Commun ACM 45(2):61–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guarino N, Welty CA (2004) An Overview of OntoClean In: Staab S, Studer R (eds) Handbook on ontologies. Springer, Berlin, Ch. 8Google Scholar
  26. Hafner CD (1981) Representation of knowledge in a legal information retrieval system. In: SIGIR ’80: proceedings of the 3rd annual ACM conference on research and development in information retrieval. Butterworth & Co., Kent, UK, UK, pp 139–153Google Scholar
  27. Hafner C (1987) Conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases. In: ICAIL ’87: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, pp 35–42Google Scholar
  28. Hoekstra R (June 2009) Ontology representation—design patterns and ontologies that make sense. Vol 197 of Frontiers of artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoekstra R, Breuker J, Bello MD, Boer A (June 2007) The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts. In: Legal ontologies and artificial intelligence techniques. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoekstra R, Breuker J, Bello MD, Boer A (2009) Lkif core: Principled ontology development for the legal domain. In: Breuker J, Casanovas P, Klein MCA, Francesconi E (eds) Law, ontologies and the semantic web. Vol. 188 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 21–52Google Scholar
  31. Jackson P, Al-Kofahi K, Tyrell A, Vachher A (2003) Information extraction from case law and retrieval of prior cases. Artif Intell 150(1-2):239–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kralingen RWV, Visser PRS, Bench-Capon TJM, Herik HJVD (1999) A principled approach to developing legal knowledge systems. Int J Hum Comput Stud 51:1127–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lame G (2004) Using nlp techniques to identify legal ontology components: concepts and relations. Artif Intell Law 12(4):379–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Luria D (1988) Death on the highway: Reckless driving as murder. Oregon Law Review 799:821–822Google Scholar
  35. Maynard D, Li Y, Peters W (2008) NLP techniques for term extraction and ontology population. In: Proceedings of the 2008 conference on ontology learning and population: bridging the Gap between text and knowledge. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 107–127Google Scholar
  36. Moens M-F, Boiy E, Mochales-Palau R, Reed C (2007) Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. In: ICAIL ’07: proceedings of the 11th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 225–230Google Scholar
  37. Motik B, Patel-Schneider P, Parsia B, Bock C, Fokoue A, Haase P, Hoekstra R, Horrocks I, Ruttenberg A, Sattler U, Smith M, 11th June 2009 OWL 2 web ontology language structural specification and functional-style syntax. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium, candidate RecommendationGoogle Scholar
  38. Peters W (2009) Text-based legal ontology enrichment. In: Proceedings of the workshop on legal ontologies and AI techniques. Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  39. Peters W, Sagri M-T, Tiscornia D (2007) The structuring of legal knowledge in LOIS. Artif Intell Law 15(2):117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rahwan, Iyad CR, Zablith F (2007) On building argumentation schemes using the argument interchange format. In: Working notes of the 7th workshop on computational models of natural argument (CMNA 2007), HyderabadGoogle Scholar
  41. Rissland EL, Ashley KD (2002) A note on dimensions and factors. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rissland EL, Skalak DB, Friedman MT (1996) BankXX: supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval. Artif Intell Law 4(1):1–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rissland EL, Ashley KD, Branting LK (2006) Case-based reasoning and law. Knowl Eng Rev 20:293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saias J, Quaresma P (2004) A methodology to create legal ontologies in a logic programming based web information retrieval system. Artif Intell Law 12(4):397–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sartor G (2006) Fundamental legal concepts: a formal and teleological characterisation. Artif Intell Law 14(1):101–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schweighofer E (1999) The revolution in legal information retrieval or: The empire strikes bac. J Inf Law Technol 1, onlineGoogle Scholar
  47. Schweighofer E, Liebwald D (2007) Advanced lexical ontologies and hybrid knowledge based systems: first steps to a dynamic legal electronic commentary. Artif Intell Law 15(2):103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwitter R, Kaljurand K, Cregan A, Dolbear C, Hart G ( 2008) A comparison of three controlled natural languages for OWL 1.1. In: 4th OWL experiences and directions workshop (OWLED 2008 DC). WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Shen Y, Steele R, Murphy J (2008) Building a semantically rich legal case repository in owl. In: Richardson J, Ellis A (eds) Proceedings of AusWeb08, The fourteenth Australian world wide web conference. Southern Cross University, Lismore, New South Wales, pp 97–108Google Scholar
  50. Sierra S (2008) Owl case features. http://github.com/lawcommons/altlaw-vocab/tree/master
  51. Solan LM (2003) Cognitive foundations of the impulse to blame. Brookyn Law Rev 68:1003–1029Google Scholar
  52. Solan LM (2005) Language and law: definitions in law. In: Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd edn), ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  53. Solan LM, Darley J (2001) Causation, contribution and legal liability: an empirical study. Law Contemp Probl 64(4):265–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sporleder C, Lascarides A (2006) Using automatically labelled examples to classify rhetorical relations: an assessment. Nat Lang Eng 14(3):369–416Google Scholar
  55. Uschold M, Gruninger M (1996) Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Know Eng Rev 11(2):93–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Valente A (2005) Types and roles of legal ontologies. In: Benjamins V, Casanovas P, Breuker J, Gangemi A (eds) Law and the semantic web. Vol. 3369 of lecture notes in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 65–76Google Scholar
  57. Walton D (2002) Legal argumentation and evidence. The Pennsylvannia State University Press, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  58. Weber RO, Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2005) Textual case-based reasoning. Know Eng Rev 20(3):255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wyner A (2008) An ontology in OWL for legal case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Law 16(4):361–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wyner A (2009) An OWL ontology for legal cases with an instantiation of Popov v. Hayashi. In: Atkinson K (ed) Proceedings of the ICAIL 2009 workshop on modeling legal cases. IDT Series. Huygens Editorial, Barcelona, pp 21–40Google Scholar
  61. Wyner A, Bench-Capon T (2007) Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In: Lodder AR, Mommers L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2007. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 139–149Google Scholar
  62. Wyner A, Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2007) Arguments, values and baseballs: representation of popov v. hayashi. In: Lodder AR, Mommers L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2007. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 151–160Google Scholar
  63. Zeng Y, Wang R, Zeleznikow J, Kemp EA (2005) Knowledge representation for the intelligent legal case retrieval. In: Knowledge-based intelligent information and engineering systems, pp 339–345Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.AI Department, Faculty of SciencesVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of LawUniversiteit van AmsterdamAmdsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations