A Process for Knowledge Transformation and Knowledge Representation of Patent Law

  • Shashishekar Ramakrishna
  • Adrian Paschke
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8620)


Automated support to model and reason based on such modeled legal norms using expert systems, for its use scenarios such as court-fillings or argumentation has increasingly become a subject of interest in last few decades. The core problem in all such automation is removing the vagueness embedded within legal texts/sections and this vagueness is due to the pragmatics involved. As of today, we believe, it is impossible for a system to handle any such problems dealing with legal pragmatics. This work proposes a process which acts a bridge between a legal practitioner can and a knowledge modeler wherein, a legal practitioner provides the legal information pertaining to a section in a simpler form as required by the modeler. We also propose several knowledge representation formats to represent the information at each layer of the proposed process. Additionally during the course of the paper, we propose a mapping scheme from legal norms in natural language format to Controlled Natural Language (CNL) format and finally to a platform independent rule representation format.


Elementary Pragmatics LegalDocML SBVR Structured English Legal Norms LegalRuleML 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ramakrishna, S.: First Approaches on Knowledge Representation of Elementary (Patent) Pragmatics. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Rule Challenge, the Special Track on Human Language Technology and the 3rd RuleML Doctoral Consortium (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    KSR Intl Co. v. Teleflex Inc: U.S. 550 U.S. 398 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balkin, J.M.: Understanding legal understanding: The legal subject and the problem of legal coherence. Yale Law Journal, 105–176 (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arnold-Moore, T., Clemes, J.: Connected to the Law: Tasmanian Legislation Using EnAct. Journal of Information, Law and Technology (1) (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dell, P.: Eur-lex :the access to european union law, Slides of a talk given on December 3 2010. Zagreb University (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boer, A., Hoekstra, R., Winkels, R.: MetaLex: Legislation in XML (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Palmirani, M., Vitali, F.: Akoma-Ntoso for Legal Documents. In: Legislative XML for the Semantic Web. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol. 4, pp. 75–100. Springer, Netherlands (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bézivin, J., Gerbé, O.: Towards a precise definition of the OMG/MDA framework. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2001, pp. 273–280. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OMG: Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR). Technical Report November, O M G Document (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnsen, A.S., Berre, A.J.R.: A bridge between legislator and technologist - Formalization in SBVR for improved quality and understanding of legal rules. In: International Workshop on Business Models, Business Rules and Ontologies, Bressanone, Brixen, Italy (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ramakrishna, S., Paschke, A.: Bridging the gap between Legal Practitioners and Knowledge Engineers using semi-formal KR. In: The 8th International Workshop on Value Modeling and Business Ontology, VMBO, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramakrishna, S., Paschke, A.: Semi-automated Vocabulary Building for Structured Legal English. In: Bikakis, A., Fodor, P., Roman, D. (eds.) RuleML 2014. LNCS, vol. 8620, pp. 201–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Palmirani, M., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Tabet, S., Boley, H., Paschke, A.: LegalRuleML: XML-Based Rules and Norms. In: Olken, F., Palmirani, M., Sottara, D. (eds.) RuleML 2011 - America 2011. LNCS, vol. 7018, pp. 298–312. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boley, H., Paschke, A., Shafiq, O.: Ruleml 1.0: The overarching specification of web rules. In: Dean, M., Hall, J., Rotolo, A., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2010. LNCS, vol. 6403, pp. 162–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paschke, A., Boley, H., Zhao, Z., Teymourian, K., Athan, T.: Reaction RuleML 1.0: Standardized Semantic Reaction Rules. In: Bikakis, A., Giurca, A. (eds.) RuleML 2012. LNCS, vol. 7438, pp. 100–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paschke, A.: Reaction RuleML 1.0 for Rules, Events and Actions in Semantic Complex Event Processing. In: RuleML 2014. LNCS, vol. 8620, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elisa, K., Mark, H.L.: Mapping SBVR to OWL2. Technical report, IBM Research Division, New York, NY (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karpovic, J., Nemuraite, L.: Transforming SBVR Business Semantics into Web Ontology Language OWL2: Main Concepts. In: Proc. 17th International Conference on Information and Software Technologies, IT 2011, pp. 231–254 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Solomakhin, D., Franconi, E., Mosca, A.: Logic-based reasoning support for SBVR. In: Proceedings of the 26th Italian Conference on Computational Logic (CILC 2011), Pescara, Italy, August 31-September 2, pp. 311–325 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 53. Cambridge University Press (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McNamara, P.: Deontic logic. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2010 edn. Stanford University (September 2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fitting, M., Mendelsohn, R.L.: First-order Modal Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Palmirani, M., Vitali, F., Cervone, L.: LIME: The Language Independent Markup Editor. University of BolognaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Tommasi, M., Corallo, A.: SBEAVER: A Tool for Modeling Business Vocabularies and Business Rules. In: Gabrys, B., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES 2006, Part III. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4253, pp. 1083–1091. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kozlenkov, A.: Prova Rule Language Version 3.0 User’s Guide (2010),
  26. 26.
    Paschke, A., Ramakrishna, S.: Legal RuleML Tutorial Use Case - LegalRuleML for Legal Reasoning in Patent Law (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shashishekar Ramakrishna
    • 1
  • Adrian Paschke
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations