Development of the ALIS IP Ontology: Merging Legal and Technical Perspectives

  • Claudia Cevenini
  • Giuseppe Contissa
  • Migle Laukyte
  • Régis Riveret
  • Rossella Rubino
Part of the The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 277)

The paper is partly based on research done for the EU-funded (IST- 2004-2.4.9) project ALIS (Automated Legal Intelligent System) on Intellectual Property Law. We describe the development process of the ALIS Intellectual Property ontology from both a legal and a technical perspective. We discuss the scope and the features of this IP ontology, the lessons learned, and the problems solved. This is done by comparing our ontology (the ALIS IP ontology) with the IPRonto ontology, which too is dedicated to IP. The paper also points out the benefits of both the ALIS system in general and the ALIS IP ontology in particular. Future development of ALIS will involve expanding its ontology to also include law and trademark law. Once these three legal ontologies are in place, they will be consolidated into a single ontology that will provide the framework for a general IP ontology.


Intellectual property law legal ontology IPROnto ALIS system 


  1. 1.
    Valente A.: Legal knowledge engineering. A modeling approach. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1995).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Visser P.R.S, Bech-Capon T.J.M.: The formal specification of a legal ontology. In: Van Kralingen et al. (eds.), Proceedings of JURIX 96 (pp. 15-24). Tilburg University Press, Tilburg (1996).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delgado J., Gallego I., Llorente S., Garcia R.: Regulatory ontologies: An intellectual property right approach. In: On the move to meaningful internet systems, OTM Workshop, pp. 621-635, Springer, Berlin (2003).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benjamins R., Casanovas P., Gangemi A., Breuker J. (eds.): Law and the semantic web: legal ontologies, methodologies, legal information retrieval, and applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin (2005).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lehmann J., Biasiotti M.A., Francesconi E., Sagri M.T. (eds.): Legal knowledge extraction and searching & legal ontology applications. Special issue of Artificial Intelligence and Law, n. 7 (2007).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breuker J., Tiscornia D., Winkels R., Gangemi A. (eds.): Ontologies for law. Special issue of Artificial Intelligence and Law, n. 4, December (2004).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gruber T.: Every ontology is a treaty (2004). Available via SIGSEMIS bulletin Accessed 7 March 2008.
  8. 8.
    Standard Upper Ontology (SUO) IEEE Working Group. Available via Accessed 3 March 2008.
  9. 9.
    World Intellectual Property Organization. Available via Accessed 7 March 2008.
  10. 10.
    Noy N.F., McGuinness D.L.: Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Stanford knowledge systems laboratory technical report KSL-01-05 and Stanford medical informatics technical report SMI-2001-0880 (2001).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Breuker J., Hoekstra R., Boer A., van den Berg K., Rubino R., Sartor G., Palmirani M., Wyner A., Bench-Capon T.: OWL ontology of basic legal concepts (LKIF-Core). Deliverable 1.4, Estrella (2007). Available via Accessed 14 March 2008.
  12. 12.
    Pellet Reasoner. Available via Accessed 14 March 2008.
  13. 13.
    ALIS Deliverable D4.2: Description of the framework. Available via https://www.myndsphere. com/gm/document-1.9.32640/ALIS_WP5_D5.1a.doc. Accessed 8 March 2008.
  14. 14.
    Bench-Capon T.J.M, Coenen F.P.: Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1(1), pp. 65-86 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Cevenini
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Contissa
    • 1
  • Migle Laukyte
    • 1
  • Régis Riveret
    • 1
  • Rossella Rubino
    • 1
  1. 1.CIRSFIDUniversity of BolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations