Advertisement

Ontology Modeling for Criminal Law

  • Chiseung Soh
  • Seungtak Lim
  • Kihyun Hong
  • Young-Yik RhimEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10791)

Abstract

In the continental law system, more attention is paid to judicial interpretation to judge legal facts or actions than judicial precedents. Therefore, in the continental legal system, it is appropriate to express the law itself with knowledge such as legal ontologies or logical rules. To construct legal ontologies and rule-based methods, legal analysis by collaboration between legal experts and knowledge engineers should be preceded. This paper proposes a general model for designing criminal law ontologies and rules. First, we introduce the super-domain ontology that contains the common characteristics of criminal law. Then, we explain the rule design method of criminal law and present the application of the anti-graft act in Korea as an example.

Keywords

Criminal law ontology Legal ontology model SWRL rules Legal reasoning Super domain ontology 

References

  1. 1.
    Benjamins, V.Richard, Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., Gangemi, A.: Law and the semantic web, an introduction. In: Benjamins, V.Richard, Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., Gangemi, A. (eds.) Law and the Semantic Web. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3369, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32253-5_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aguiló-Regla, J.: Introduction: legal informatics and the conceptions of the law. In: Benjamins, V.Richard, Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., Gangemi, A. (eds.) Law and the Semantic Web. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3369, pp. 18–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32253-5_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breuker, J.: The construction and use of ontologies of criminal law in the eCourt European project. In: Proceedings of Means of Electronic Communication in Court Administration, pp. 15–40 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bezzazi, E.-H.: Building an ontology that helps identify criminal law articles that apply to a cybercrime case. In: ICSOFT (PL/DPS/KE/MUSE), pp. 179–185. INSTICC Press (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bak, J., Jedrzejek, C.: Application of an ontology-based model to a selected fraudulent disbursement economic crime. In: Casanovas, P., Pagallo, U., Sartor, G., Ajani, G. (eds.) AICOL -2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6237, pp. 113–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16524-5_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gordon, T.F.: Constructing legal arguments with rules in the legal knowledge interchange format (LKIF). In: Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Casellas, N., Rubino, R. (eds.) Computable Models of the Law. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4884, pp. 162–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Contissa, G.: Rulebase Technology and Legal Knowledge Representation. In: Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Casellas, N., Rubino, R. (eds.) Computable Models of the Law. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4884, pp. 254–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Governatori, G., Hashmi, M., Lam, H.-P., Villata, S., Palmirani, M.: Semantic business process regulatory compliance checking using LegalRuleML. In: Blomqvist, E., Ciancarini, P., Poggi, F., Vitali, F. (eds.) EKAW 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10024, pp. 746–761. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49004-5_48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Biagioli, C., Francesconi, E., Passerini, A., Montemagni, S., Soria, C.: Automatic semantics extraction in law documents. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 133–140. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soria, C., Bartolini, R., Lenci, A., Montemagni, S., Pirrelli, V.: Automatic extraction of semantics in law documents. In: Proceedings of the V Legislative XML Workshop, pp. 253–266 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dragoni, M., Governatori, G., Villata, S.: Automated rules generation from natural language legal texts. In: Workshop on Automated Detection, Extraction and Analysis of Semantic Information in Legal Texts, San Diego, USA, pp. 1–6 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dragoni, M., Villata, S., Rizzi, W., Governatori, G.: Combining NLP approaches for rule extraction from legal documents. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on ‘MIning and REasoning with Legal texts’ collocated at the 29th International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saias, J., Quaresma, P.: A methodology to create legal ontologies in a logic programming information retrieval system. In: Benjamins, V.R., Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., Gangemi, A. (eds.) Law and the Semantic Web. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3369, pp. 185–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32253-5_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lenci, A., Montemagni, S., Pirrelli, V., Venturi, G.: NLP-based ontology learning from legal texts. a case study. In: LOAIT, pp. 113–129. CEUR-WS.org (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Völker, J., Fernandez Langa, S., Sure, Y.: Supporting the construction of Spanish legal ontologies with Text2Onto. In: Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Casellas, N., Rubino, R. (eds.) Computable Models of the Law. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4884, pp. 105–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saias, J., Quaresma, P.: Using NLP techniques to create legal ontologies in a logic programming based web information retrieval system (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoekstra, R., Breuker, J., Di Bello, M., Boer, A., et al.: The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts. In: LOAIT, pp. 43–63 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Intellicon Meta Lab.SeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations