When a FrameNet-Style Knowledge Description Meets an Ontological Characterization of Fundamental Legal Concepts

  • Tommaso Agnoloni
  • Meritxell Fernández Barrera
  • Maria Teresa Sagri
  • Daniela Tiscorni
  • Giulia Venturi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6237)


The need for bridging the gap between linguistically-oriented knowledge resources (i.e. lexicons) and domain-oriented ones (i.e. ontologies) is acknowledged within both the NLP and the AI&Law community. In this paper we propose to face this need by comparing a FrameNet-style and an ontological characterization of the ‘obligation’ Fundamental Legal Concept. In particular, we carried out a case-study aimed at investigating whether and to which extent different views on this Fundamental Legal Concept offered by the FrameNet resource can be mapped to an ontological characterization of the complex concept of ‘public function’, stemmed from the basic normative position ‘obligation’.


Legal Ontologies Semantic Lexicons Fundamental Legal Concepts FrameNet 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Francesconi, E., Tiscornia, D.: Building semantic resources for legislative drafting: the DALOS Project. In: Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Rubino, R., Casellas, N. (eds.) Computable Models of the Law. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4884, pp. 56–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hohfeld, W.N.: Some fundamental legal conceptions. Greenwood Press, Westport (1978)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rotolo, A., Rubino, R., Sartor, G.: An OWL Ontology of Fundamental Legal Concepts. In: 19th JURIX 2006: Annual Conference Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 101–110. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sartor, G.: Fundamental legal concepts: A formal and teleological characterization. In: Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 14, pp. 101–142. Springer, Netherlands (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sartor, G.: The Nature of Legal Concepts: Inferential Nodes or Ontological Categories? In: Law Working Papers, EUI, Florence (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gangemi, A., Sagri, M.T., Tiscornia, D.: A Constructive Framework for Legal Ontologies. In: Benjamins, V.R., Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., Gangemi, A. (eds.) Law and the Semantic Web. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3369, pp. 97–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biagioli, C., Turchi, F.: Model and ontology based conceptual searching in legislative xml collections. In: LOAIT – Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques. IAAIL Workshop Series, pp. 83–89. Wolf Legal Publisher, Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Biagioli, C., Francesconi, E., Passerini, A., Montemagni, S., Soria, C.: Automatic semantics extraction in law documents. In: ICAIL International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 133–139. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Francesconi, E.: An Approach to Legal Rules Modelling and Automatic Learning. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, pp. 59–68. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferrario, R., Guarino, N., Fernández-Barrera, M.: Towards an Ontological Foundation for Services Science: the Legal Perspective. In: Sartor, G., Casanovas, P., Biasiotti, M., Fernández-Barrera, M. (eds.) Workshop on Approaches to Legal Ontologies (2010) (Forthcoming)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peters, W., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Aguado de Cea, G.: Localizing Ontologies in OWL.- Ontolex, Ontologies and Lexical Resources Interfacing Ontologies and Lexical Resources for Semantic Web Technologies (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Picca, D., Gliozzo, A.M., Gangemi, A.: LMM: an OWL-DL MetaModel to Represent Heterogeneous Lexical Knowledge. In: 6th LREC International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp. 126–142. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vossen, P., Maks, I., Segers, R., Van der Vliet, H.: Integrating lexical units, synsets and ontology in the Cornetto Database. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Agnoloni, T., Bacci, L., Francesconi, E.: Ontology based legislative drafting: design and implementation of a multilingual knowledge resource. In: Gangemi, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) EKAW 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5268, pp. 364–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Casellas, N.: Modelling Legal Knowledge through Ontologies. OPJK: the Ontology of Professional Judicial Knowledge. PhD thesis, Autonomous University of Barcelona (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sartor, G., Casanovas, P., Biasiotti, M., Fernández-Barrera, M. (eds.): Workshop on Approaches to Legal Ontologies (2010) (Forthcoming)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Visser, B.-C.: A Comparison of Four Ontologies for the Design of Legal Knowledge Systems. In: Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 6, pp. 27–57. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Valente, A., Breuker, J.: Ontologies: the Missing Link Between Legal Theory and AI & Law. In: Soeteman, A. (ed.) Legal knowledge based systems JURIX 1994: The Foundation for Legal Knowledge Systems, pp. 138–150. Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Austin, J.: The province of jurisprudence determined. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995[1832])Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wieacker, F.: A history of private law in Europe with particular reference to Germany. Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York (1955)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hohfeld, W.N.: Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning I. Yale Law Journal 23(1), 16–59 (1913)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hohfeld, W.N.: Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. Yale Law Journal 26, 710–770 (1917)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Holmes, O.W.: Codes and the Arrangement of the Laws. American Law Review 5, 1 (1870)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Holmes, O.W.: The Arrangement of the Law. Privity. American Law Review 7, 46 (1872)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Allen, L.E., Saxon, C.S.: Better Language, Better Thought, Better Communication: The A-HOHFELD Language for Legal Analysis. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, May 21-24. University of Maryland, College Park (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCarty, L.T.: A language for legal discourse, I. Basic features. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 180–189 (1989)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCarty, L.T.: OWNERSHIP: A case study in the representation of legal concepts. Presented at a Conference in Celebration of the 25th Anniversary of the Istituto Documentazione Giuridica, Florence, Italy (1993)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Valente, A., Breuker, J., Brouwer, B.: Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 51, 1079–1125 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lehmann, J., Breuker, J., Brouwer, B.: Causation in AI&Law. In: ICAIL 2003 Workshop on Legal Ontologies & Web Based Legal Information Management (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lehmann, J.: Causation in Artificial Intelligence and Law - A modelling approach. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam - Faculty of Law - Department of Computer Science and Law (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mommers, L.: Applied Legal epistemology. Building a knowledge-based ontology of the legal domain, PhD thesis (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Breuker, J., Winkels, R.: Use and reuse of legal ontologies in knowledge engineering and information management. In: ICAIL 2003 Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Web Based Legal Information Management (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Breuker, J., Hoekstra, R.: Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRI-Core, two core ontologies for law. In: Proceedings of EKAW Workshop on Core ontologies. CEUR (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Breuker, J., Hoekstra, R., Boer, A. (eds.): OWL Ontology of Basic Legal Concepts (LKIF-Core). Deliverable 1.4 (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M.R.L., Johnson, C.R., Scheffczyk, J.: FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice (2006),
  36. 36.
    Breuker, J.: Dreams and awakenings about legal ontologies. In: Talk taken on the occasion of the 3rd Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT 2009), Barcelona, Spain, June 8 (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fellbaum, C. (ed.): WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fillmore, C.J.: Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (280), 20–32 (1976)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scheffczyk, J., Pease, A., Ellsworth, M.: Linking FrameNet to the suggested upper merged ontology. In: Proc. of FOIS 2006, Baltimore, MD (2006)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Niles, Pease, A.: Towards a standard upper ontology. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2001), Ogunquit, Maine (2001)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sagri, M.-T., Tiscornia, D., Bertagna, F.: Jur-WordNet. In: Proceedings of the Second Global WordNet Conference, Brno, Czech Republic, January 20-23, pp. 305–310 (2004)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peters, W., Sagri, M.T., Tiscornia, D.: The structuring of legal knowledge in Lois. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15, 117–135 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Venturi, G., Lenci, A., Montemagni, S., Vecchi, E.M., Sagri, M.T., Tiscornia, D., Agnoloni, T.: Towards a FrameNet Resource for the Legal Domain. In: Proceedings of the III Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT 2009), Barcelona (2009)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Modugno, F.: Funzione. In: Enciclopedia del Diritto, vol. XVIII, pp. 301–313. Giuffrè (1969)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hoekstra, R.: Ontology Representation - Design Patterns and Ontologies that Make Sense. Frontiers of Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 197. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gangemi, A.: What’s in a Schema? In: Huang, C.R., Calzolari, N., Gangemi, A., Lenci, A., Oltamari, A., Prevot, L. (eds.) Ontologies and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gangemi, A.: Design Patterns for Legal Ontology Construction. In: Casanovas, P., Noriega, P., Bourcier, D., Galindo, F. (eds.) Trends in Legal Knowledge: The Semantic Web and the Regulation of Electronic Social Systems. European Press Academic Publishing (2007)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Coppola, B., Gangemi, A., Gliozzo, A., Picca, D., Presutti, V.: Frame Detection over the Semantic. In: Aroyo, L., Traverso, P., Ciravegna, F., Cimiano, P., Heath, T., Hyvönen, E., Mizoguchi, R., Oren, E., Sabou, M., Simperl, E. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 126–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tommaso Agnoloni
    • 1
  • Meritxell Fernández Barrera
    • 2
  • Maria Teresa Sagri
    • 1
  • Daniela Tiscorni
    • 1
  • Giulia Venturi
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Legal Information Theory and TechniquesCNRFirenzeItaly
  2. 2.European University InstituteFirenzeItaly
  3. 3.Institute of Computational LinguisticsCNRPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations