Advertisement

A Constructive Framework for Legal Ontologies

  • Aldo Gangemi
  • Maria-Teresa Sagri
  • Daniela Tiscornia
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3369)

Abstract

The increasing development of legal ontologies seems to offer interesting solutions to legal knowledge formalization, which in past experiences lead to a limited exploitation of legal expert systems for practical use. The paper describes how a constructive approach to ontology can provide useful components to create newly designed legal decision support systems either as local or Web-based semantic services. We describe the relation of our research to AI&Law and legal philosophy, the components of our Core Legal Ontology, the JurWordNet semantic lexicon, and some examples of use of legal ontologies for both norm conformity and compatibility. Our legal ontologies are based on DOLCE+, an extension of the DOLCE foundational ontology developed in the WonderWeb and Metokis EU projects.

Keywords

Proper Part Deontic Logic Legal Knowledge Legal Domain Constitutive Norm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Winkels, R. (ed.): Second International Workshop on Legal Ontologies (LEGONT), at the Jurix Conference (2002), http://lri.jur.uva.nl/winkels/legont.html
  2. 2.
    Breuker, J., Gangemi, A., Tiscornia, D., Winkels, R. (eds.): ICAIL03 Wks on Legal Ontologies, Edinburgh (2003), http://lri.jur.uva.nl/winkels/legontICAIL2003.html
  3. 3.
    Jarrar, M., Salaun, A. (eds.): First Workshop on Regulatory Ontologies, OTM Workshops. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jarrar, M., Gangemi, A. (eds.): Second Workshop on Regulatory Ontologies, OTM Workshops. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benjamins, R., Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., Gangemi, A.: Law and the Semantic Web. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sagri, M.T., Tiscornia, D., Gangemi, A.: An Ontology-based Approach for Representing “Bundle-of-rights”. In: Jarrar, M., Gangemi, A. (eds.) Second International Workshop on Regulatory Ontologies, in OTM Workshops. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gangemi, A., Prisco, A., Sagri, M.T., Steve, G., Tiscornia, D.: Some ontological tools to support legal regulatory compliance, with a case study. In: Jarrar, M., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the WORM03 Workshop at OTM Conference. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alexy, R.: A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1989)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Allen, L.E., Saxon, C.S.: Analysis of the Logical Structure of Legal Rules by a Modernized and Formalized Version of Hohfeld’s Fundamental Legal Conceptions. In: Martino, A.A., Socci, F.S. (eds.) Automated Analysis of Legal Texts, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1986)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: The Use of Logical Models in Legal Problem Solving. In: Narayan, A., Bennum, M. (eds.) Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Ablex (1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sergot, M.: The Representation of Law in Computer Programs. In: Capon, T.B. (ed.) Knowledge Based Systems and legal Applications, pp. 3–68. Academic Press, London (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2) (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamfelt, A., Barklund, J.: Hierarchical Representation of Legal Knowledge with Metaprogramming in logic. In: Proceedings of First Compulog-NetWorkshop, Imperial College, London (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bench Capon, T.J.M., Coenen, F.P.: Isomorphism and Legal Knowledge-based systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law: An International Journal 1(1), 65–86 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones, A., Sergot, M.: On the Characterization of Law and Computer Sustems: The Normative Systems Perspective. In: a cura di J. Meyer, Ch., e Wieringa, R.J.: Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley, UK (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kolodner, J.L.: Case-based reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, Calif. (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Breuker, J., den Haan, N.: Separating world and regulation knowledge: where is the logic. In: Sergot, M. (ed.) Processing of the third internetional conference on AI and Law, Association of Computing Machinery, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chisholm, R.M.: Contrary to duty imperative and deontic logic. Analysis 24 (1963)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hohfeld, W.N.: Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in legal reasoning. Yale Law Journal XXIII(1), 16–59 (1913)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jones, A., Sergot, M.: A Formal Characterisation of Institutional Power. Journal of IGPL 4(3), 429–445 (1996)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bowen, K.A., Kowalski, R.: Amalgamating Language and Metalanguage in Logic Programming. In: Tarnlund, C. (ed.) Logic Programming, pp. 153–172. Academic Press, London (1982)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moore, M.: Legal Reality: A Naturalist Approach to Legal Ontology. Law and Philosophy 21, 619–705 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Forbus, K., Mostek, T., Ferguson, R.: An analogy ontology for integrating analogical processing and first-principles reasoning. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karmiloff-Smith, A.: Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gangemi, A., Mika, P.: Understanding the Semantic Web through Descriptions and Situation. In: Meersman, R., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of ODBASE 2003. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Masolo, C., Vieu, L., Bottazzi, E., Catenacci, C., Ferrario, R., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N.: Social Roles and their Descriptions. In: Welty, Dubois (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A.: The WonderWeb Library of Foundational Ontologies, IST 2001-33052 Wonder Web (2003), http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/deliverables/documents/D18.pdf
  28. 28.
    Gangemi, A., Catenacci, C., Lehmann, J., Borgo, S.: Task taxonomies for knowledge content, EU 6FP METOKIS Project, D07 (2004), http://metokis.salzburgresearch.at
  29. 29.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): Description logic handbook. Cambridge UP, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eco, U.: Kant e l’ornitorinco, Milano, Bompiani (1997)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Visser, P., Capon, T.B.: Ontologies in the Design of Legal Knowledge Systems, towards a Library of Legal Domain Ontologies. In: Proceedings of Jurix 1999, Leuven, Belgique (1999)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dean, M., Schreiber, G.: Owl web ontology language reference, W3c candidaterecommendation, World Wide Web Consortium (August 2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hart, H.L.A.: The Concept of Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1961)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alchourrón, C.E., Buligyn, E.: Normative System. Springer, Wien (1971)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Searle, J.: The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press, N.Y. (1995)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gangemi, A., Bottazzi, E., Catenacci, C., Lehmann, J.: From Collective Intentionality to Intentional Collectives: An Ontological Perspective. In: Castelfranchi, C., Tummolini, L. (eds.) International Conference on Collective Intentionality (2004)(to appear)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lindhal, L.: Position and Change. A study in Law and Logic (1977)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kanger, S.: Law and Logic. Theoria 38, 105–132 (1972)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jones, A.: A logical Framework. In: Pitt, J. (ed.) Open Agents Societies: Normative Specifications in Multi-Agent Systems. Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2003)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pörn, I.: Action Theory and Social Science. In: Some Formal Models. Reidel, Dordrechtz (1977)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lehmann, J., Borgo, S., Masolo, C., Gangemi, A.: Causality and Causation in DOLCE. In: Vieu, L., Varzi, A.C. (eds.) Third International Conference on Formal Ontology and Information Systems (FOIS 2004). IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sagri, M.T.: Progetto per lo sviluppo di una rete lessicale giuridica on line attraverso la specializzazione di ItalWordnet, in Informatica e Diritto, ESI, Napoli (2003)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roventini, A., Alonge, A., Bertagna, F., Calzolari, N., et al.: ItalWordNet: Building a Large Semantic Database for the Automatic Treatment of Italian. In: “Linguistica Computazionale”, Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, Pisa-Roma (2000)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vossen, P. (ed.): EuroWordNet A Multilingual Database with Lexical Semantic Networks. Kluwer Academic publishers, Dordrecht (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fellbaum, C. (ed.): WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gangemi, A., Battaglia, M., Catenacci, C.: The Inflammation Ontology Design Pattern. In: Pisanelli, D.M. (ed.) Biomedical Ontologies. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Boer, A., van Engers, T., Winkels, R.: Using Ontologies for Comparing and Harmonizing Legislation. In: Proceedings of the 9th ICAIL Conference, Edinburgh (2003)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gärdenfors, P.: The Dynamics of Normative Systems (1989)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Biagioli C.: An XML editor for Legislative drafting. JURIX wks on E-Government (2002)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sartor, G.: Legal Reasoning and Normative Conflicts. In: Reasoning with Inconsistency (1991)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gangemi, A., Pisanelli, D.M., Steve, G.: A Formal Ontology Framework to represent Norm Dynamics. In: Proc. of Second International Workshop on Legal Ontologies, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ross, A.: Directives and Norms, London (1968)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    McCormick, N.: Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1978)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dworkin, R.: Taking Rights Seriously, 2nd edn. Duckworth, London (1978)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    von Wright, G.E.: Norm and Action. Routledge, London (1963)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Valente, A., Breuker, J.: A Functional Ontology of Law. In: Preatti del Convegno del Venticinquennale IDG, Firenze, pp. 3–6 (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aldo Gangemi
    • 1
  • Maria-Teresa Sagri
    • 2
  • Daniela Tiscornia
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory for Applied OntologyISTC-CNR, (Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology, of the Italian National Research Council)RomeItaly
  2. 2.ITTIG-CNR (Institute for Theory and Techniques for Legal, Information of the Italian Research Council)FlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations