Modeling Relevant Legal Information for Consumer Disputes

  • Cristiana Santos
  • Víctor Rodriguez-Doncel
  • Pompeu Casanovas
  • Leon van der Torre
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9831)

Abstract

Accessing relevant legal information found in text excerpts from heterogeneous sources is essential to the decision making process in consumer disputes. The Ontology of Relevant Legal Information in Consumer Disputes (ric) is the domain-independent ontology modeling this relevant legal information comprising rights, their requisites, exceptions, constraints, enforcement procedures, legal sources. Its use is exemplified with one extension thereof, the Air Transport Passenger Incidents Ontology (ric-atpi), representing both the possible incidents triggered by a complaint in the air transport passenger domain and the related legal information that might be applicable. The Ontology models the key provisions found in hard law, and those in soft law, comprising heterogeneous sources in a structured manner. An ontology-based system provides the knowledge embedded in the legal sources and their relation to the specific scenario.

Keywords

Relevance Legal ontology Access to legal information 

References

  1. 1.
    Fernández-Barrera, M., Sartor, G.: The legal theory perspective: doctrinal conceptual systems vs. computational ontologies. In: Sartor, G., Casanovas, P., Biasiotti, M., Fernández-Barrera, M. (eds.) Approaches to Legal Ontologies, Theories, Domains, Methodologies. LGT Series, pp. 15–47. Springer, Amsterdam (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rodríguez-Doncel, V., et al.: A model of air transport passenger incidents and rights. In: Hoekstra, R. (ed.) Proceedings of the 27th JURIX, pp. 55–69. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cortés, P.: ODR for Consumers, ODR Methods for Settling B2C Conflicts, Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution, p. 164. Eleven Law Publishing, Utrecht (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saracevic, T.: Relevance reconsidered, information science: integration in perspectives. In: Second Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, pp. 201–218 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gruber, T.R.: Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 43, 907–928 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saracevic, T.: Relevance: a review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II: nature and manifestations of relevance. ASIS&T 58(3), 1915–1933 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dabney, D.P.: The curse of Thamus: an analysis of full-text legal document retrieval. Law Libr. J. 78, 5–40 (1986)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Micklitz, H.-W., et al.: An introduction to the special issue on behavioural economics, consumer policy, and consumer law. JCP 34, 271–276 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saravanan, M., et al.: Improving legal information retrieval using an ontological framework. Artif. Intell. Law 17, 101–124 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jarrar, M.: Towards effectiveness and transparency in e-business transactions, an ontology for customer complaint management. In: Semantic Web Methodologies for E-Business Applications, pp. 127–149 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bing, J.: Let there be LITE: a brief history of legal information retrieval. EJLT 1(1) (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blair, D., Maron, M.: An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system. Commun. ACM 28(3), 289–299 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suárez-Figueroa, M.C., Gómez-Pérez, A., Motta, E., Gangemi, A. (eds.): Ontology Engineering in a Networked World. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernandez-Lopez, M., Corcho, O.: Ontological Engineering: with Examples from the Areas of Knowledge Management, e-Commerce and the Semantic Web. Springer, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suárez-Figueroa, M.C., Gómez-Pérez, A., Villazón-Terrazas, B.: How to write and use the ontology requirements specification document. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2009, Part II. LNCS, vol. 5871, pp. 966–982. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dabney, D.P.: The curse of Thames: an analysis of full-text legal document retrieval. Law Libr. J. 78(5), 5–40 (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alvite, M.L.: Tendencias a la investigación sobre la recuperación de Información Jurídica. Revista española de Documentación Científica, vol. 26, no. 2 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schweighofer, E.: The revolution in legal information retrieval or: the empire strikes back. J. Law Inf. Technol. 1 (1999) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moens, M.F.: XML retrieval models for legislation. In: Legal Knowledge Systems JURIX, pp. 1–10 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gelbart, D., Smith, J.C.: Toward a comprehensive legal information retrieval system. In: DEXA 1990, pp. 121–125 (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turtle, H.: Inference networks for document retrieval. Ph.D. thesis, Computer Science Department Univ. Massachusetts, MA 01003, COINS Technical Report 90-92 (1990)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    George, C.P., et al.: SMART Electronic Legal Discovery via Topic Modeling [URL]. FLAIRS-27, Pensacola, Florida, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blei, D.M., Ng, A.Y., Jordan, M.I.: Latent Dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 993–1022 (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Uschold, M., Gruninger, M., et al.: Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 11(2), 93–136 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Casanovas, P., Casellas, N., Vallbé, J.-J.: Empirically grounded developments of legal ontologies: a socio-legal perspective. In: Sartor, G., Casanovas, P., Biasiotti, M., Fernández-Barrera, M. (eds.) Approaches to Legal Ontologies. LGT Series, vol. 1, pp. 49–67. Springer, Amsterdam (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Opijnen, M.V.: A model for automated rating of case law. In: ICAIL, pp. 140–149 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Terpan, F.: Soft law in the European union the changing nature of EU law. Eur. Law 21, 68–96 (2014). WileyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bench-Capon, T., Coenen, F.: Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artif. Intell. Law 1(1), 65–86 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Routen, T.: Hierarchically organised formalisations. In: Proceedings of the Second ICAIL. ACM Press, Vancouver, pp. 242–250 (1989)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Karpf, J.: Quality Assurance of Legal Expert Systems. Jurimatics, no. 2, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark (1989)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prakken, H., Schrickx, J.: Isomorphic models for rules and exceptions in legislation. In: Breuker, J.A.P.J., et al. (eds.) JURIX 91: Model-Based Legal Reasoning. Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, pp. 17–27 (1991)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Palmirani, M., Contissa, G., Rubino, R.: Fill the gap in the legal knowledge modelling. In: Governatori, G., Hall, J., Paschke, A. (eds.) RuleML 2009. LNCS, vol. 5858, pp. 305–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sergot, M.J.: The representation of law in computer programs. In: Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (ed.) Knowledge Based Systems and Legal Applications, pp. 3–68. Academic Press (1991)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gordon, T.F.: The Carneades web service. In: Verheij, B. (eds.) Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2012. IOS Press, pp. 517–518 (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    McCarthy, L.T.: Onwnership: a case study in the representation of legal concepts. AI&Law J. 10, 135–161 (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gruninger, M., Fox, M.S.: The role of competency questions in enterprise engineering. In: Rolstadås, A. (ed.) WG5.7 Workshop on Benchmarking - Theory and Practice. IFIP, pp. 22–31. Springer, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Uschold, M., King, M.: Towards a methodology for building ontologies. In: Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing (1995)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Poveda, M., et al.: Oops! (ontology pitfall scanner!): an on-line tool for ontology evaluation. Int. J. Semant. Web Inf. Syst. 10(2), 4–14 (2014)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Casanovas, P., et al.: The role of pragmatics in the web of data. In: Poggi, F., Capone, A. (eds.) Pragmatics and Law. Practical and Theoretical Approaches. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gaines, B.R.: Knowledge acquisition: past, present and future. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 71, 135–156 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Boella, G., et al.: A critical analysis of legal requirements engineering from the perspective of legal practice. In: IEEE 7th International Workshop RELAW, pp. 14–21 (2014)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Benjamins, V.R., et al.: The SEKT legal use case components: ontology and architecture. In: Gordon, T. (ed.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, JURIX 2004, pp. 69–77. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristiana Santos
    • 1
    • 4
  • Víctor Rodriguez-Doncel
    • 2
  • Pompeu Casanovas
    • 1
    • 3
  • Leon van der Torre
    • 4
  1. 1.IDT-UABBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Ontology Engineering GroupUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain
  3. 3.Centre for Applied Social SciencesRoyal Melbourne Institute of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.University of LuxembourgLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations