Traceability of the Implementation of Legal Rules in Public Administration

  • Alexander Boer
  • Tom van Engers
  • Radboud Winkels
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 57)


While isomorphism of knowledge representation has been recognized as important, particularly to maintenance in legal knowledge representation, the requirements of the maintenance process in general get less attention. Traceability from knowledge resources used in the organization to the sources of law used in their production is a central maintenance issue in administrative organizations. This paper explores a mediating knowledge representation for reconstruction of traces to sources of law and to implementation knowledge resources, that should be helpful for analysis of the impact of changing sources of law.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Boer, A., van Engers, T.: Agile: From source of law to business process specification. In: Casellas, N., Francesconi, E., Hoekstra, R., Montemagni, S. (eds.) LOAIT 2009: 3rd Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques Joint with 2nd Workshop on Semantic Processing of Legal Text, Barcelona, Spain, IDT-UAB. IDT Series, vol. 2, pp. 27–44 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Breuker, J.: A suite of problem types. In: Breuker, J., de Velde, W.V. (eds.) Common KADS Library for Expertise Modelling, pp. 57–88. IOS-Press/Ohmsha, Amsterdam/Tokyo (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scarantino, A.: Affordances explained. Philosophy of Science 70(5), 949–961 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boer, A., Winkels, R., Vitali, F.: Metalex XML and the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format. In: Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Casellas, N., Rubino, R. (eds.) Computable Models of the Law. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4884, pp. 21–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) ISBN: 978-3-540-85568-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boer, A., Vitali, F., de Maat, E.: CEN Workshop Agreement on MetaLex XML, an open XML Interchange Format for Legal and Legislative Resources (CWA 15710). Technical report, European Committee for Standardization, CEN (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boer, A.: Legal Theory, Sources of Law, & the Semantic Web. In: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 195. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boer, A.: Metalex naming conventions and the semantic web. In: Governatori, G. (ed.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, pp. 31–36. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saur, K.G.: Functional requirements for bibliographic records. UBCIM Publications - IFLA Section on Cataloguing 19 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Changing legal systems: legal abrogations and annulments in Defeasible Logic. Logic Jnl IGPL, jzp075 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boer, A.: Using event descriptions for metadata about legal documents. In: Winkels, R., Francesconi, E. (eds.) Electronic Proceedings of the Workshop on Standards for Legislative XML, in Conjunction with Jurix (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    MacCormick, N.: Norms, institutions, and institutional facts. Law and Philosophy 17(3), 301–345 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hindriks, F.A.: Rules & Institutions; essays in meaning, speech and social ontology. PhD thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glimm, B., Horridge, M., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A syntax for rules in owl 2. In: OWL Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2009), Washington D.C., USA (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halaschek-Wiener, C., Katz, Y., Parsia, B.: Belief base revision for expressive description logics. In: Online Proceedings of the Second OWL: Experiences and Directions Workshop (OWLED), Athens, Georgia, USA (2006),
  15. 15.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: On the relation between legal language and legal argument: assumptions, applicability and dynamic priorities. In: ICAIL ’95: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 1–10. ACM, New York (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 275–296 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bench-Capon, T., Coenen, F.: Exploiting isomorphism: development of a KBS to support British coal insurance claims. In: Sergot, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on AI and Law, pp. 62–69. ACM, New York (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Borgo, S., Guarino, N., Masolo, C.: Stratified ontologies: The case of physical objects. In: Proceedings of the ECAI-96 Workshop on Ontological Engineering (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith, B.: An essay in formal ontology. Grazer Philosophische Studien 6, 39–62 (1978)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Regulative and constitutive norms in normative multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Whistler, CA (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mazzarese, T.: Towards the semantics of “constitutive” in judicial reasoning. Ratio Iuris 12, 252–262 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Obligations as social constructs. In: Cappelli, A., Turini, F. (eds.) AI*IA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2829, pp. 27–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Governatori, G., Sadiq, S.: The journey to business process compliance. In: Handbook of Research on BPM, pp. 426–454. IGI Global (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Boer
    • 1
  • Tom van Engers
    • 1
  • Radboud Winkels
    • 1
  1. 1.Leibniz Center for LawUniversity of AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations