Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 485–519 | Cite as

Versioned linking of semantic enrichment of legal documents

Emerald: an implementation of knowledge-based services in a semantic web approach
  • Ákos Szőke
  • András FörhéczEmail author
  • Gábor Kőrösi
  • György Strausz


Regulations affect every aspect of our lives. Compliance with the regulations impacts citizens and businesses similarly: they have to find their rights and obligations in the complex legal environment. The situation is more complex when languages and time versions of regulations should be considered. To propose a solution to these demands, we present a semantic enrichment approach which aims at (1) decreasing the ambiguousness of legal texts, (2) increasing the probability of finding the relevant legal materials, and (3) utilizing the application of legal reasoners. Our approach is also implemented both as a service for citizens and businesses and as a modeling environment for legal drafters. To evaluate the usefulness of the approach, a case study was carried out in a large organization and applied to corporate regulations and Hungarian laws. The results suggest this approach can support the previous aims.


Legal xml Ontology SWRL Rdf Semantic enrichment Linked data 



The work is supported in part by the KMOP-2009-1.1.1. grant.


  1. Auer S, Lehmann J, Ngomo A-CN (2011) Introduction to linked data and its lifecycle on the web. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on reasoning web: semantic technologies for the web of data, RW’11, pp 1–75, Berlin, Heidelberg, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechhofer S, Miles A (2009) SKOS simple knowledge organization system reference. W3C recommendation, W3C, August
  3. Berners-Lee T, Fielding R, Masinter L (2005) Uniform resource identifier (URI): generic syntax. RFC 3986 (Standard)Google Scholar
  4. Boer A, Hoekstra R, Winkels R, van Engers T, Willaert F (2002) META lex: legislation in XML. In: Bench-Capon T, Daskalopulu A, Winkels RGF (eds) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems Jurix 2002: the fifteenth annual conference, frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  5. Breuker J, van der Ven S, Ali El A, Bron M, Hoekstra R, Klarman S, Milosovics U, Wortel L, Förhécz A (2008) Developing HARNESS. Estrella deliverable 4.6, University of Amsterdam,
  6. Duerst M, Suignard M (2005) Internationalized resource identifiers (IRIs). RFC 3987 (Proposed Standard)Google Scholar
  7. Förhécz A, Strausz G (2011) An ontology-based rule chaining algorithm for legal expert systems. In: Computational intelligence and informatics (CINTI). 2011 IEEE 12th international symposium on Nov pp 443–447Google Scholar
  8. Francesconi E (2006) The norme in rete-project: standards and tools for italian legislation. Int J Legal Inf 34:358–376Google Scholar
  9. Francesconi E (2007) Technologies for European integration: standards-based interoperability of legal information systems. European Press Academic Publishing, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  10. Francesconi E, Spinosa P (2012) A uniform resource name (urn) namespace for sources of law (lex). Accessed on 15 Jan 2013
  11. Glimm B, Lutz C, Horrocks I, Sattler U (2008) Conjunctive query answering for the description logic SHIQ. J Artif Intell Res 31:157–204MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Heath T, Bizer C (2011) Linked data: evolving the web into a global data space 1st edition. Morgan & Claypool, San RafaelGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoekstra R (2011) The MetaLex Document Server—legal documents as versioned linked data. In: Alani H, Tailor J (eds) Proceedings of the 10th international semantic web conference ISWC. Springer, Berlin, p 16Google Scholar
  14. Horrocks I, Patel-Schneider PF, Boley H, Tabet S, Grosof B, Dean M (2004) SWRL: a semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium 5Google Scholar
  15. Horrocks I, Kutz O, Sattler U (2006) The even more irresistible SROIQ. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR2006), pp 57–67, AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  16. IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (2009) International Federation of Library Associations, and Institutions. Section on Cataloguing. Standing Committee. Functional requirements for bibliographic records: final report. K.G. SaurGoogle Scholar
  17. Klarman S, Hoekstra R, Bron M (2008) Versions and applicability of concept definitions in legal ontologies. In: Clark K, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) Proceedings of OWL: experiences and directions. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Krötzsch M, Maier F, Krisnadhi A, Hitzler P (2011) A better uncle for owl: nominal schemas for integrating rules and ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web, WWW ’11, pp 645–654, New York, NY, USA, ACMGoogle Scholar
  19. Marín RH, Sartor G (1999) Time and norms: a formalisation in the event-calculus. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL ’99, pp 90–99, New York, NY, USA, ACMGoogle Scholar
  20. Magyar közlöny (2013) Ministry of Public Administration and Justice. Accessed on 15 Jan 2013
  21. Palmirani M, Brighi R (2006) Time model for managing the dynamic of normative system. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Electronic Government, EGOV’06, pp 207–218, Berlin, Heidelberg, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  22. Patel-schneider PF (2008) Safe rules for OWL 1.1. In: Knowledge creation diffusion utilization, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  23. Patel-Schneider PF, Motik B, Grau BC (2009) OWL 2 web ontology language direct semantics. W3C recommendation, W3C, Oct,
  24. Sartor G, Palmirani M, Francescon E, Biasiotti MA (eds) (2011) Legislative XML for the semantic web: principles, models, standards for document management. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. van de Ven S, Hoekstra R, Breuker J, Wortel L, El-Ali A (2008) Judging amy: automated legal assessment using OWL 2. In: Dolbear C, Ruttenberg A, Sattler U (eds) OWLED, volume 432 of CEUR workshop proceedings. CEUR-WS.orgGoogle Scholar
  27. W3C OWL Working Group (2009) OWL 2 web ontology language document overview. Technical report, W3C, October, 2009,
  28. W3C (2004) Rdf primer.
  29. West R (2011) Normative jurisprudence: an introduction. Cambridge introductions to philosophy and law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ákos Szőke
    • 1
  • András Förhécz
    • 2
    Email author
  • Gábor Kőrösi
    • 2
  • György Strausz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Measurement and Information SystemsBudapest University of Technology and EconomicsBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Multilogic Ltd.BudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations