Advertisement

Knowledge Acquisition from Sources of Law in Public Administration

  • Alexander Boer
  • Tom van Engers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6317)

Abstract

Knowledge acquisition from text, and sources of law in particular, is a well established technique. Text is even – certainly in the context of the Semantic Web – increasingly conceived of as a raw knowledge resource that can be mined for knowledge routinely and automatically.

As experience by large public administrations shows, the maintenance of traceability to the original sources of law from context-dependent knowledge representation resources of various kinds is hardly a solved problem, though. The use of IT in general has increased the organization’s capacity for change in many dimensions, but because of the increasing use of IT the organization has to manage an increasing number of executable pseudo-specifications that contain knowledge of the law but fail to present a coherent picture of it.

In this paper we present some of the guiding principles and ontological distinctions we use in the Agile project to accurately document the use of the law as a knowledge resource in administrative organizations.

Keywords

Knowledge Representation Knowledge Acquisition Legal Rule Constitutive Rule Administrative Organization 
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.
    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)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bench-Capon, T., Gordon, T.F.: Isomorphism and argumentation. In: ICAIL 2009: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 11–20. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chandrasekaran, B., Johnson, T.R.: Generic tasks and task structures: History, critique and new directions. In: David, J.M., Krivine, J.P., Simmons, R. (eds.) Second Generation Expert Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breuker, J.: A suite of problem types. In: Breuker, J., de Velde, W.V. (eds.) CommonKADS Library for Expertise Modelling, pp. 57–88. IOS-Press/Ohmsha, Amsterdam/Tokyo (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Boer, A., van Engers, T., Winkels, R.: Traceability and change in legal requirements engineering. In: Casanovas, P., Pagallo, U., Ajani, G., Sartor, G. (eds.) AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Governatori, G., Sadiq, S.: The journey to business process compliance. In: Handbook of Research on BPM, pp. 426–454. IGI Global (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Siena, A., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A., Susi, A.: From laws to requirements. Requirements Engineering and Law, 6–10 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Janssen, M.: Adaptability and accountability of information architectures in interorganizational networks. In: ICEGOV 2007: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 57–64. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gong, Y., Janssen, M., Overbeek, S., Zuurmond, A.: Enabling flexible processes by eca orchestration architecture. In: ICEGOV 2009: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 19–26. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Breuker, J., Hoekstra, R.: Core concepts of law: taking common-sense seriously. In: Proceedings of Formal Ontologies in Information Systems FOIS 2004, pp. 210–221. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacCormick, N.: Norms, institutions, and institutional facts. Law and Philosophy 17(3), 301–345 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hindriks, F.A.: Rules & Institutions; essays in meaning, speech and social ontology. PhD thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mazzarese, T.: Towards the semantics of “constitutive” in judicial reasoning. Ratio Luris 12, 252–262 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Obligations as social constructs. In: AI*IA, pp. 27–38 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: On the relation between legal language and legal argument: assumptions, applicability and dynamic priorities. In: ICAIL 1995: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 1–10. ACM, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 275–296 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    Saur, K.G.: Functional requirements for bibliographic records. UBCIM Publications - IFLA Section on Cataloguing 19 (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Changing legal systems: legal abrogations and annulments in Defeasible Logic. Logic Jnl IGPL, jzp075 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hohfeld, W.: Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Legal Reasoning. Yale University Press (1919); Cook, W.W.(ed.): fourth printing (1966)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    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), http://owl-workshop.man.ac.uk/accepted06.shtml

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations