Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 313–335 | Cite as

A crowdsourcing approach to building a legal ontology from text



This article focuses on the problems of application of artificial intelligence to represent legal knowledge. The volume of legal knowledge used in practice is unusually large, and therefore the ontological knowledge representation is proposed to be used for semantic analysis, presentation and use of common vocabulary, and knowledge integration of problem domain. At the same time some features of legal knowledge representation in Ukraine have been taken into account. The software package has been developed to work with the ontology. The main features of the program complex, which has a Web-based interface and supports multi-user filling of the knowledge base, have been described. The crowdsourcing method is due to be used for filling the knowledge base of legal information. The success of this method is explained by the self-organization principle of information. However, as a result of such collective work a number of errors are identified, which are distributed throughout the structure of the ontology. The results of application of this program complex are discussed in the end of the article and the ways of improvement of the considered technique are planned.


Knowledge representation Ontology Legal information Software implementation Self-organization Crowdsourcing 


  1. Ashley KD (1990) Modeling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashley KD (2011) The case-based reasoning approach: ontologies for analogical legal argument. In: Sartor M, Casanovas P, Biasotti M, Barrera M (eds) Approaches to legal ontologies. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashley KD, Bridewell W (2010) Emerging AI & Law approaches to automating analysis and retrieval of electronically stored information in discovery proceedings. Artif Intell Law 18(4):311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker C, Fillmore C, Cronin B (2003) The structure of the FrameNet data base. Int J Lexicogr 16(3):281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bench-Capon T, Visser P (1997) Ontologies in legal information systems; the need for explicit specifications of domain conceptualisations. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. Melbourne, Australia, pp 132–141.
  6. Biagioli C, Francesconi E, Passerini A, Montemagni S, Soria C (2005) Automatic semantics extraction in law documents. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, Bologna, Italy. Accessed 10 Jan 2014
  7. Boas H (2005) From theory to practice: frame semantics and the design of FrameNet. In: Langer S, Schnorbusch D (eds) Semantik im Lexikon, vol 479. Narr, Tübingen, pp 129–159 Google Scholar
  8. Boer A, Hoekstra R, Winkels R (2001) The CLIME ontology. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on legal ontologies. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Accessed 17 Oct 2013
  9. Braun S, Kunzmann C, Schmidt A (2012) Semantic people tagging and ontology maturing: an enterprise social media approach to competence management. Int J Knowl Learn 8(1/2):86–111. doi: 10.1504/IJKL.2012.047555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breuker B, Winckels R (2003) Use and reuse of legal ontologies in knowledge engineering and information management. In: Proceedings of the workshop on legal ontologies and web based legal information management (ICAIL 2003).,d.Yms. Accessed 30 Sept 2013
  11. Breuker J, Valente A, Winkels R (2004) Legal ontologies in knowledge engineering and information management. Artif Intell Law 12:241–277. doi: 10.1007/s10506-006-0002-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casanovas P, Casellas N, Tempich C, Vrandecic D, Richard B (2007) OPJK and DILIGENT: ontology modeling in a distributed environment. Artif Intell Law 15:171–186. doi: 10.1007/s10506-007-9036-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Castellas N (2011) Legal ontology engineering: methodologies, modelling trends, and the ontology of professional judicial knowledge (law, governance and technology series 3). Springer, Dordrecht. doi: 10.107/978-94-007-1497-7
  14. Delgado et al (2003) IPROnto: an ontology for digital rights management. In: JURIX 2003 frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, pp 106. Accessed 30 Oct 2013
  15. Ding Y, Foo S (2002) Ontology research and development, Part 1—a review of ontology generation. J Inf Sci. 28(2):123–136. Accessed 28 Sept 2013
  16. Francesconi E, Montemagni S, Peters W, Tiscornia D (2010) Integrating a bottom-up and top-down methodology for building semantic resources for the multilingual legal domain. In: Francesconi E, Montemagni S, Peters W, Tiscornia D (eds) Semantic processing of legal texts: where the language of law meets the law of language, pp 95–121. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-12837-0_6
  17. Gangemi A, Prisco A, Sagri MT, Steve G, Tiscornia D (2003) Some ontological tools to support legal regulatory compliance, with a case study. In: Workshop WORM Core, LNCS, Springer, pp 607–620. Accessed 29 Sept 2013
  18. Gangemi A, Sagri M-T, Tiscornia D (2005) A constructive framework for legal ontologies. In: Benjamins VR, Casanovas P, Breuker J, Gangemi A (eds) Law and the semantic web. Springer, Berlin. Accessed 19 Sept 2013
  19. Garbarino C (2010) A model of legal systems as evolutionary networks: normative complexity and self-organization of clusters of rules. Bocconi University, Milan. Accessed 28 Sept 2013
  20. Gavrilova T, Khoroshevsky V (2001) Knowledge base of intelligent systems. Peter, Saint PetersburgGoogle Scholar
  21. Golovchyner M (2011) Introduction to knowledge systems. Course of lectures. Tomsk. Accessed 10 Oct 2013
  22. Gruber T (1995) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int J Hum Comput Stud 43(5–6):907–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guizzardi G (2007) On ontology, ontologies, conceptualizations, modeling languages, and (meta)models. In: Vasilecas O, Edler J, Caplinskas A (eds) Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, databases and information systems IV, IOS Press, Amsterdã, pp 18–39. Accessed 13 Oct 2013
  24. Haken H (2006) Information and self-organization: a macroscopic approach to complex systems, (3rd enlarged ed.). Springer, BerlimGoogle Scholar
  25. Helbig H (2006) Knowledge representation and the semantics of natural language. Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Henderson J, Bench-Capon T (2001) Dynamic arguments in a case law domain. In: ICAIL’01: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 60–69. doi: 10.1145/383535.383542
  27. Hohfeld W (1996) Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in legal reasoning. Yale University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Is Wikipedia more reliable than the Encyclopaedia Britannica? (2012) In: The straight dope. Accessed 24 April 2013
  29. Iskold A (2006) ChaCha: a human-powered search engine. Accessed 16 Oct 2013
  30. Jones T (2008) Artificial intelligence: a systems approach. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., SudburyGoogle Scholar
  31. Khala A (2012) On the construction of an ontology for the legal field with the use of technology METHONTOLOGY. National academy Sciences of Ukraine Collection of scientific works in Institute of problems of modeling in energetics. G.Puhova Prev Kiev 64:64–71. Accessed 25 May 2013
  32. Klykov M, Grigoriev N, Balalaeva T (2007) Fundamentals of management. Khabarovsk Publisher DVGUPS. Accessed 22 Sept 2013
  33. Kozaki K, Hayashi Y, Sasajima M, Tarumi S, Mizoguchi R (2008) Understanding semantic web applications. In: Proceedings of the 3-rd Asian semantic web conference (ASWC 2008), Feb 2–5, Bangkok, Thailand, pp 524–539Google Scholar
  34. Lin H, Davis J, Zhou Y (2010) Ontological services using crowdsourcing. 21st Australasian conference on information systems ACIS2010, Proceedings. Brisbane. Accessed 17 Sept 2013
  35. Masolo C, Vieu L, Bottazzi E, Catenacci C, Ferrario R, Gangemi A, Guarino N (2004) Social roles and their descriptions. In: Dubois D, Welty D, Williams M (eds) Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning: proceedings of the ninth international conference on principle of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR). Accessed 21 Oct 2013
  36. Mizoguchi R (2009) Yet another top-level ontology: YATO. In: Proceedings of the second interdisciplinary ontology meeting, Tokyo, Japan, pp 91–101. Accessed 13 Oct 2013
  37. Mortensen J, Alexander P, Musen M, Noy N (2013) Crowdsourcing ontology verification. In: The 12th international semantic web conference (ISWC2013). Accessed 23 Oct 2013
  38. Muromtsev D (2007) Ontologic engineering of knowledge in Protégé system. SPb: SPb GU ITMO Accessed 23 April 2013
  39. Nardi JC, Falbo RD, Almeida JP (2013) Foundational ontologies for semantic integration in EAI: a systematic literature review. In: Douligeris C et al (eds) I3E 2013, IFIP AICT 399, pp 238–249Google Scholar
  40. Naydysh B (2004) Concepts of modern natural science. Alpha-M, Infra-M, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  41. Nguyen V (2011) Ontologies and information systems: a literature survey. Defence science and technology organization, DSTO-TN-1002, Edinburg, South Australia, Australia. Accessed 21 Oct 2013
  42. Noy N, McGuiness D (2001) Ontology development 101. Stanford knowledge systems laboratory technical report KSL-01-05 Accessed 14 Oct 2013
  43. Oberle D et al (2007) DOLCE ergo SUMO: on foundational and domain models in the SmartWeb Integrated Ontology (SWIntO). J Web Semant 5:3. Accessed 11 Oct 2013
  44. Peters W, Sagri M-T, Tiscornia D (2007) The structuring of legal knowledge in LOIS. Artif Intell Law 15:117–135. doi: 10.1007/s10506-007-9034-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Poblet M, Casanovas P, López-Cobo J-M, Castellas N (2011) ODR, Ontologies, and Web 2.0. J Univ Comput Sci. 17(4):618–634.
  46. Pontin J (2007) Artificial intelligence, with help from the humans. NY Times, 25, March, 2007. Accessed 24 Oct 2013
  47. Prigogin I, Stengers I (1986) Order out of chaos. New dialogue with nature. Progress, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  48. Sarasua C, Simperl E, Noy N (2012) CrowdMap: crowdsourcing ontology alignment with microtasks. Lecture notes in computer science, 7649. In: The semantic web—ISWC 2012 11th international semantic web conference, Boston, MA, USA, 11–15 Nov. Proceedings, Part I. 525–541. Accessed 20 Oct 2013
  49. Saravanan M, Ravindran B, Raman S (2009) Improving legal information retrieval using an ontological framework. Artif Intell Law 17:101–124. doi: 10.1007/s10506-009-9075-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sartor G (2009) Legal concepts as inferential nodes and ontological categories. Artif Intell Law 17(3):217–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scherp A, Saathoff C, Franz T, Staab S (2011) Designing core ontologies. Arbeitsberichte des Fachbereichs Informatik 5:1–61. Accessed 25 Oct 2013
  52. Shapiro S (2004) A logic of arbitrary and indefinite objects. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on knowledge representation and reasoning (KR-2004). Menlo Park, California, pp 565–575Google Scholar
  53. Sivakumar R, Arivoli P (2011) Ontology visualization PROTÉGÉ tools—a review. IJAIT 1(4):1–11. doi: 10.5121/ijait.2011.1401 Google Scholar
  54. Sokolov A, Morozova O, Ivanov V (2010) A model of directed training on the basis of the ontological approach. Radioelectron Comput Syst 1(42):96–102Google Scholar
  55. Solov’ev V, Dobrov B, Ivanov V, Lukashevich N (2006) Ontologies and thesaurus. Kazan State University. Accessed 30 Sept 2013
  56. Soria C, Bartolini R, Lenci A, Montemagni S, Pirrelli V (2007) Automatic extraction of semantics in law documents. In: Biagioli C, Francesconi E, Sartor G (eds) Proceedings of the V Legislative XML workshop. European Press Academic Publishing, pp 253–266.
  57. Sowa J (2000) Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. Brooks & Cole, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  58. Studer R, Benjamins V, Fensel D (1998) Knowledge engineering: principles and methods. Data Knowl Eng 25:161–197. Accessed 16 Oct 2013
  59. Tatsyi V et al (2010) Semantic network of knowledge in science of law. In: Proceedings of the IASTED international conference on automation, control, and information technology. Anaheim, USA, ACTA PressGoogle Scholar
  60. Treiblmayr M, Scheider S, Krüger A, Von der Linden M (2011) Integrating GI with non-GI services—showcasing interoperability in a heterogeneous service-oriented architecture. GeoInformatica 16:207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Trujillo B (2004) Self-organizing legal systems: precedent and variation in bankruptcy. Utah Law Rev 483: 483–562.
  62. van Kralingen R (1995) Frame-based conceptual models of statute law. The Hague et al., Kluwer Law Int. Accessed 17 Oct 2013
  63. Van Noord J (2011) The wiki-fication of the world. In: Chicago tribune Accessed 14 May 2013
  64. Visser P, Bench-Capon T (1998) A comparison of four ontologies for the design of legal knowledge systems. Artif Intell Law 6:27–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang Y, Tian Y, Hu K (2011) Semantic manipulations and formal ontology for machine learning based on concept algebra. Int J Cognit Inf Nat Intell 5(3):1–29CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  66. Zeng Y, Wang R, Zeleznikow J, Kemp EA (2005) Knowledge representation for the intelligent legal case retrieval. In: Khosla R, Howlett RJ, Jain LC (eds) KES (Part 1). Lecture notes in computer science, Springer, 3681:339–345. doi: 10.1007/11552413_49

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yaroslav the Wise National Law UniversityKharkivUkraine

Personalised recommendations