MetaLex XML and the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format

  • Alexander Boer
  • Radboud Winkels
  • Fabio Vitali
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4884)

Abstract

Electronic government invariably involves XML and electronic law: legislation is as essential to public administration as the ball is to a ball game. This paper gives an overview of two XML standard proposals dealing with two complementary aspects of electronic legislation – the documents themselves as a carrier, and an institutional reality they represent – in a coherent way: MetaLex XML and the Legal Knowledge Interchange format (LKIF). MetaLex XML is well on its way to becoming formal and de facto standard for legislation in XML. LKIF is yet to be submitted as a proposed standard. LKIF includes some interesting innovations from an AI & Law perspective.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Boer, A., Hoekstra, R., Winkels, R., van Engers, T., Willaert, F.: META lex: Legislation in XML. In: Bench-Capon, T., Daskalopulu, A., Winkels, R. (eds.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (Jurix 2002), pp. 1–10. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boer, A., Hoekstra, R., Winkels, R., van Engers, T.: META lex: Jurisdiction and Language. In: Palmirani, M., van Engers, T., Wimmer, M.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the E-Government Workshop in conjunction with JURIX 2003, December 2003, pp. 54–66. Universitätsverlag Rudolf Trauner (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dick, J.P.: Representation of legal text for conceptual retrieval. In: ICAIL 1991: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 244–253. ACM Press, New York (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gordon, T.F.: Constructing arguments with a computational model of an argumentation scheme for legal rules. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 117–121 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rubino, R., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: An owl ontology of fundamental legal concepts. In: van Engers, T.M. (ed.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, December 2006. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 152, pp. 101–110. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breuker, J., Boer, A., Hoekstra, R., van den Berg, K.: Developing content for LKIF: Ontologies and frameworks for legal reasoning. In: van Engers, T.M. (ed.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, December 2006. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 152, pp. 169–174. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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, New York, pp. 62–69. ACM, New York (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Biagioli, C., Francesconi, E., Passerini, A., Montemagni, S., Soria, C.: Automatic semantics extraction in law documents. In: ICAIL, pp. 133–140 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Maat, E., Winkels, R., van Engers, T.: Making Sense of Legal Texts. In: Grewendorf, G., Rathert, M. (eds.) Formal Linguistics and Law, Mouton, De Gruyter, Berlin. Trends in Linguistics - Studies and Monographs (TiLSM) (in press, 2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoekstra, R., Breuker, J., Di Bello, M., Boer, A.: The LKIF Core ontology of basic legal concepts. In: Casanovas, P., Biasiotti, M.A., Francesconi, E., Sagri, M.T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT 2007) (June 2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Makinson, D.: On a fundamental problem of deontic logic. In: McNamara, P., Prakken, H. (eds.) Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies in Deontic Logic and Computer Science. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 49, pp. 29–53. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chisholm, R.M.: Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis 24, 33–36 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1980)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sowa, J.F.: Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical and computational foundations. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., Schneider, L.: Sweetening ontologies with dolce. In: Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., Schneider, L. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 223–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dennett, D.: The Intentional Stance. MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoekstra, R., Breuker, J., Di Bello, M., Boer, A.: LKIF Core: Principled ontology development for the legal domain. In: Breuker, J., Casanovas, P., Klein, M., Francesconi, E. (eds.) Law, Ontologies, and the Semantic Web. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008) (submitted for review)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-11), 875–896 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boer, A.: The Consultancy Game. In: Breuker, J.A., Leenes, R., Winkels, R.G.F. (eds.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2000: The Thirteenth Annual Conference. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 99–112. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Motik, B., Horrocks, I., Rosati, R., Sattler, U.: Can OWL and logic programming live together happily ever after? In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 501–514. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Boer
    • 1
  • Radboud Winkels
    • 1
  • Fabio Vitali
    • 2
  1. 1.Leibniz Center for LawUniversity of AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of BolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations