Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 61–108 | Cite as

Cross-categorization of legal concepts across boundaries of legal systems: in consideration of inferential links

  • Fumiko Kano Glückstad
  • Tue Herlau
  • Mikkel N. Schmidt
  • Morten Mørup
Article

Abstract

This work contrasts Giovanni Sartor’s view of inferential semantics of legal concepts (Sartor in Artif Intell Law 17:217–251, 2009) with a probabilistic model of theory formation (Kemp et al. in Cognition 114:165–196, 2010). The work further explores possibilities of implementing Kemp’s probabilistic model of theory formation in the context of mapping legal concepts between two individual legal systems. For implementing the legal concept mapping, we propose a cross-categorization approach that combines three mathematical models: the Bayesian Model of Generalization (BMG; Tenenbaum and Griffiths in Behav Brain Sci 4:629–640, 2001), the probabilistic model of theory formation, i.e., the Infinite Relational Model (IRM) first introduced by Kemp et al. (The twenty-first national conference on artificial intelligence, 2006, Cognition 114:165–196, 2010) and its extended model, i.e., the normal-IRM (n-IRM) proposed by Herlau et al. (IEEE International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing, 2012). We apply our cross-categorization approach to datasets where legal concepts related to educational systems are respectively defined by the Japanese- and the Danish authorities according to the International Standard Classification of Education. The main contribution of this work is the proposal of a conceptual framework of the cross-categorization approach that, inspired by Sartor (Artif Intell Law 17:217–251, 2009), attempts to explain reasoner’s inferential mechanisms.

Keywords

Cross-categorization Knowledge structuring Ontology alignment Generalization Inference Relational model 

References

  1. Aldous D (1985) Exchangeability and related topics. In: École dÉté de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XIII-1983 (Lecture notes in mathematics). Springer, Berlin, pp 1–198Google Scholar
  2. Berlin J, Motro A (2002) Database schema matching using machine learning with feature selection. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, vol 2348 of lecture notes in computer science, pp 452–466Google Scholar
  3. Bilke A, Neumann F (2005) Schema matching using duplicates. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on data engineering, pp 69–80Google Scholar
  4. Block N (1986) Advertisement for a semantics for psychology. In: Midwest studies in philosophy. Studies in the Philosophy of Mind. University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Boghossian P (2003) Epistemic analyticity: a defense. In: Glock H-J, Glür K, Keil G (eds) Grazer philosophische studien, fifty years of quine’s two dogmas. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 15–35Google Scholar
  6. Cabré CMT (2000) Elements for a theory of terminology, towards an alternative paradigm. In: Terminology/2000, vol 6, no 1. John Benjamins Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  7. Carey S (1985) Conceptual change in childhood. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng CP, Lau GT, Law KH, Pan J, Jones A (2008) Regulation retrieval using industry specific taxonomies. Artif Intell Law 16:277–303Google Scholar
  9. Danon L, Díaz-Guilera A, Duch J, Arenas A (2005) Comparing community structure identification. Theory Exp J Stat Mech 2005:09008Google Scholar
  10. Davis E (1990) Representation of commonsense knowledge. Morgan Kaufmann, San MateoGoogle Scholar
  11. de Souza KXS, Davis J (2004) Aligning ontologies and evaluating concept similarities. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, On the move to meaningful internet systems 2004Google Scholar
  12. Declerck T, Krieger HU, Thomas SM, Buitelaar P, O’Riain S, Wunner T, Maguet G, McCrae J, Spohr D, Montiel-Ponsoda E (2010) Ontology-based multilingual access to financial reports for sharing business knowledge across Europe. In: Rooz J, Ivanyos J (eds) Internal financial control assessment applying multilingual ontology framework. HVG Press, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  13. Doan AH, Madhavan J, Domingos P, Halevy A (2004) Ontology matching: a machine learning approach. In: Staab S, Studer R (eds) Handbook on ontologies, chapter 18. Springer, Berlin, pp 385–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Durst-Andersen P (2011) Linguistic supertypes: a cognitive-semiotic theory of human communication. De Gruyter Mouton, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ehrig M (2007) Ontology alignment: bridging the semantic gap. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Euzenat J (1994) Brief overview of t-tree: the tropes taxonomy building tool. In: Proceeding of the 4th ASIS SIG/CR workshop on classification research, pp 69–87Google Scholar
  17. Euzenat J, Shvaiko P (2007) Ontology matching. Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Euzenat J, Valtchev P (2004) Similarity-based ontology alignment in owl-lite. In: Proceedings of the 15th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI),Valencia, Spain, pp 333–337Google Scholar
  19. Field H (1977) Logic meaning and conceptual role. J Philos 69:379–408MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Fodor J, Lepore E (1992) Holism: a shopper’s guide. Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Ganter B, Wille R (1997) Formal concept analysis: mathematical foundations, 1st edn. Springer, New York. ISBN 3540627715Google Scholar
  22. Glückstad FK, Mørup M (2012a) Flexible- or Strict Taxonomic Organization?: impact on culturally-specific knowledge transfer. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on terminology and knowledge engineering, Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  23. Glückstad FK, Mørup M (2012b) Application of the Infinite Relational Model combined with the Bayesian Model of Generalization for effective cross-cultural knowledge transfer. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the japanese society for artificial intelligence (JSAI 2012), Yamaguchi, JapanGoogle Scholar
  24. Glückstad FK, Mørup M (2012c) Feature-based Ontology Mapping from an Information Receivers’ Viewpoint. In: Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on natural language processing and cognitive science (NLPCS 2012), ICEIS 2012, Wroclaw, PolandGoogle Scholar
  25. Glückstad FK, Herlau T, Schmidt MN, Mørup M (2013) Unsupervised knowledge structuring: application of Infinite Relational Models to the FCA visualization. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on signal image technology and internet based systems (SITIS 2013), Kyoto, JapanGoogle Scholar
  26. Goodman ND, Tenenbaum JB, Feldman J, Griffiths TL (2008) A rational analysis of rule-based concept learning. In: Cognitive Science. 1, 32, pp 108–154Google Scholar
  27. Gruber T (1992) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int J Hum Comput Stud 43:907–928Google Scholar
  28. Haack S (2003) Defending science within reason. Prometheus, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  29. Hansen TJ, Mørup M, Hansen LK (2011) Non-parametric co-clustering of large scale sparse bipartite networks on the gpu. In: IEEE international workshop on machine learning for signal processing (MLSP), IEEEGoogle Scholar
  30. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman JH (2001) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and predictionGoogle Scholar
  31. Hempel CG (1985) Thoughts on the limitations of discovery by computer. In: Schaffner K (eds) Logic of discovery and diagnosis in medicine. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 115–122Google Scholar
  32. Herlau T, Mørup M, Schmidt MN, Hansen LK (2012) Modelling dense relational data. In: IEEE international workshop on machine learning for signal processing (MLSP), Santander, SpainGoogle Scholar
  33. Huang HH, Kuo YH (2010) Cross-lingual document representation and semantic similarity measure: a fuzzy set and rough set approach. In: IEEE transaction on fuzzy systems, vol 18, p 6Google Scholar
  34. Ichise R, Takeda H, Honiden S (2003) Integrating multiple internet directories by instance-based learning. In: Proceedings 18th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 22–30Google Scholar
  35. Ichise R, Takeda H, Honiden S (2004) Discovering relationships among catalogs. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on discovery science, in lecture book titles in computer science, vol 3245, Padova, Italy, pp 371–379Google Scholar
  36. Jaccard P (1901) Distribution de la flore alpine dans le bassin des dranses et dans quelques regions voisines. Bulletin de la societe vaudoise des sciences naturelles 37:241–272Google Scholar
  37. Kageura K (2002) Dynamics of terminologyGoogle Scholar
  38. Kemp C, Goodman ND, Tenenbaum JB (2008) Learning and using relational theories. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 20Google Scholar
  39. Kemp C, Shafto P, Tenenbaum JB (2012) An integrated account of generalization across objects and features. Cognitive Psychol 64:35–73Google Scholar
  40. Kemp C, Tenenbaum JB (2009) Structured statistical models of inductive reasoning. Psychol Rev 116(1):20–58Google Scholar
  41. Kemp C, Tenenbaum JB, Griffiths TL, Yamada T, Ueda N (2006) Learning systems of concepts with an infinite relational model. In: The twenty-first national conference on artificial intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  42. Kemp C, Tenenbaum JB, Niyogi S, Griffiths TL (2010) A probablistic model of theory formation. Cognition 114:165–196Google Scholar
  43. Lacher M, Grog G (2001) Facilitating the exchange of explicit knowledge through ontology mappings. In: Proceedings of the international Florida artificial intelligence research society conference, pp 305–309Google Scholar
  44. Lindahl L (2004) Deduction and justification in the law: the role of regal terms and concepts. Ration Juris, pp 182–201Google Scholar
  45. Madsen BN, Thomsen HE, Vikner C (2004) Principles of a system for terminological concept modelling. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on language resources and evaluation, ELRA, pp 15–19Google Scholar
  46. Masolo C, Borgo S, Gangemi A, Guarino N, Oltramari A (2003) WonderWeb deliverable D18 ontology library (final). Technical report, IST Project 2001-33052 WonderWeb: ontology infrastructure for the semantic webGoogle Scholar
  47. Mitra P, Noy N, Jaiswal A (2005) Ontology mapping discovery with uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the 4th international semantic web conference (ISWC), in lecture booktitles in computer science, vol 3729, Galway, Ireland, pp 537–547Google Scholar
  48. Mørup M, Madsen KH, Dogonowski AM, Siebner H, Hansen LK (2010) Infinite relational modeling of functional connectivity in resting state fmri. In: Proceedings of neural information processing systemsGoogle Scholar
  49. Murphy GL (2004) The big book of concepts. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Murphy GL, Medin DL (1985) The role of theories in conceptual coherence, pp 289–316Google Scholar
  51. Peirce CS (2006) The categories. In: Haack S (ed) Pragmatism, old and new. Prometheus, Amherst, pp 177–208Google Scholar
  52. Peirce CS (2010) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce I–VIII. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Pitman J (2002) Combinatorial stochastic processes. In: Book titles for Saint Flour Summer SchoolGoogle Scholar
  54. Psillos S (2000) Rudolf carnap’s theoretical concepts in science. Stud Hist Philos Sci: 151–172Google Scholar
  55. Quilian MR (1968) Semantic memory. In: Minsky M (ed) Semantic information processing. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Ramsey FP (1991) On truth: original manuscript materials, 1927–1929 from the Ramsey Collection At the University of Pittsburgh. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  57. Ross A (1957) Tu-tu. Scand Stud Law, pp 139–153Google Scholar
  58. Salton G (1989) Automatic text processing: the transformation, analysis, and retrieval of information by computer. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc, BostonGoogle Scholar
  59. Sartor G (2009) Legal concepts as inferential nodes and ontological categories. Artif Intell Law 17:217–251Google Scholar
  60. Sperber D, Wilson D (1986) Relevance: communication and cognition. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Stumme G, Mädche A (2001) Fca-merge: bottom-up merging of ontologies. In: Proceedings of 17th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJAI), pp 225–234Google Scholar
  62. Tenenbaum JB, Griffiths TL (2001) Generalization, similarity, and bayesian inference. Behav Brain Sci 4:629–640Google Scholar
  63. Thagard P (1992) Conceptual revolutions. Princeton Unviersity Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  64. Tversky A (1977) Features of similarity. Psychol Rev 4:327–352Google Scholar
  65. Wang J, Wen JR, Lochovsky F, Ma WY (2004) Instance-based schema matching for web databases by domain-specific query probing. In: Proceedings of the 30th international conference on very large data bases, pp 408–419Google Scholar
  66. Wellman HM, Gelman SA (1992) Cognitive development: foundational theories of core domains. Ann Rev Psychol: 227–375Google Scholar
  67. Woodfield A (1987) On the very idea of acquiring a concept. Philosophical perspectives on developmental psychology. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  68. Wüster E (1959) Das worten der weld, schaubildlich und terminologisch dargestelltGoogle Scholar
  69. Xu Z, Tresp V, Yu K, Kriegel HP (2006) Infinite hidden relational models. In: Proceedings of 22nd conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  70. Yevtushenko SA (2000) System of data analysis “concept explorer” (in russian). In: Proceedings of the 7th national conference on artificial intelligence KII-2000, Russia, pp 127–134Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fumiko Kano Glückstad
    • 1
  • Tue Herlau
    • 2
  • Mikkel N. Schmidt
    • 2
  • Morten Mørup
    • 2
  1. 1.Copenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark
  2. 2.Technical University of DenmarkKgs LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations