Judicial Support Systems: Ideas for a Privacy Ontology-Based Case Analyzer

  • Yan Tang
  • Robert Meersman
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3762)


Nowadays, ontology is applied as an integral part of many applications in several domains, especially in the world of law. The ontology based judicial support system is believed as a useful tool to support, for example, the legal argumentation assistant and legal decision taking in court. The privacy case analyzer is considered as one of the most interesting applications of ontology based privacy judicial support systems. The efficiency of privacy case analyzers depend on several factors such as how to tackle the problem of linking cases to legislations, how to imply the guidance of privacy principles, and how to improve the extraction of cases. This paper addresses those items and describes the research issues that will be investigated challenges of ontology based judicial support systems.


Privacy ontology Woolf reforms privacy principles privacy directives privacy ontology structure 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gruber, T.R.: Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. In: Workshop on Formal Ontology, Padova, Italy (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Leenheer, P., De Moor, A.: Context-driven Disambiguation in Ontology Elicitation. In: Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J. (eds.) Context and Ontologies: Theory, Practice and Applications. AAAI Technical Report WS-05-01, pp. 17–24. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meersman, R.: Ontologies and Databases: More than a Fleeting Resemblance. In: D’Atri, A., Missikoff, M. (eds.) OES/SEO 2001 Rome Workshop. Luiss Pub. (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holland, J.A., Webb, J.S.: Learning legal rules. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Woolf, L.: substantial change of civil court rule in UK (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Summers, R.: Two types of substantive reasons: the core of a theory of common law justification. 63 Cornell Law Review 707 (1978)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Verheyden, P., De Bo, J., Meersman, R.: Semantically unlocking database content through ontology-based mediation. In: Bussler, C.J., Tannen, V., Fundulaki, I. (eds.) SWDB 2004. LNCS, vol. 3372, pp. 109–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Leenheer, P., Meersman, R.: Towards a formal foundation of DOGMA Ontology Part I: Lexon Base and Concept Definition Server. Technical Report STAR-2005-06, STARLab, Brussel (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dumortier, J., Goemans, C.: Roadmap for European legal research in privacy and identity management. K.U. Leuven (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halpin, T.A.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases: From Conceptual Analysis to Logical Design. Morgan Kaufman Publishers, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Valente, A., Breuker, J.: Ontology: the missing link between legal theory and AI & law. In: Soeteman, A. (ed.) Legal knowledge based systems JURIX 1994: Lelystad, Koninklijke Vermande (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niblett, B.: Computer science and law: an introductory discussion. In: Niblett, B. (ed.) computer science and law: an advanced course. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1980)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yan Tang
    • 1
  • Robert Meersman
    • 1
  1. 1.Semantics Technology and Applications Research Laboratory (STARLab), Department of Computer ScienceVrije Universiteit BrusselBRUSSEL 5Belgium

Personalised recommendations