Advertisement

Ontologies in the Legal Domain

Chapter

Abstract

‘Legal ontology’ is the common denominator for a varying set of models focusing on legal domains, their ‘environments’, legal argumentation and other legal and legally relevant phenomena. Their nature and classification are explained in this article. The main classification is along the lines of semantic, epistemic and ontological claims in the ontologies.

Keywords

Legal Concept Legal Knowledge Legal Information Open Texture Legal Domain 
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.

References

  1. Bix, B. 1991. H.L.A. Hart and the open texture of language. Law and Philosophy 10:51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breuker, J., and R. Winkels. 2003. Use and reuse of legal ontologies in knowledge engineering and information management. Proceedings of the ICAIL 2003 workshop on legal ontologies & web based legal information management, 1–35. Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  3. Després, S., and S. Szulman. 2005. Merging of legal micro-ontologies from european directives. Proceedings of the LOAIT workshop. June 6, Bologna.Google Scholar
  4. Dini, L., D. Liebwald, L. Mommers, W. Peters, E. Schweighofer, and W. Voermans. 2005. Cross-lingual legal information retrieval using a WordNet architecture. Proceedings of ICAIL’05, 163–167, ACM, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Fellbaum, C. ed. 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Frege, G. 1892. Über sinn und bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50.Google Scholar
  7. Gangemi, A., M.T. Sagri, and D. Tiscornia. 2003. Jur-Wordnet, a source of metadata for content description in legal information. In Proceedings of the workshop on legal ontologies & web based legal information management, part of The international conference of artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL 2003), Edinburgh, June 24, 2003.Google Scholar
  8. Gruber, T.R. 1993. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5:199–220.Google Scholar
  9. Gruber, T.R. 1993. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5:199–220.Google Scholar
  10. Hage, J.C., R.E. Leenes, and A.R. Lodder. 1993. Hard cases: A procedural approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2(1):113–167.Google Scholar
  11. Hart, H.L.A. 1961. The concept of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press (ninth impression 1978).Google Scholar
  12. Hoorn, E. 2005. JurisPedia en de zichtbaarheid van de rechtswetenschap. In Nederlands Juristenblad, 4 November 2005.Google Scholar
  13. van Kralingen, R.W. 1995. Frame–based conceptual models of statute law. Leiden University, Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
  14. van Laarschot, R., W. van Steenbergen, H. Stuckenschmidt, A.R. Lodder, and F. van Harmelen. 2005. The legal concepts and the layman's terms. Proceedings of the 18th annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems. IOS Press, Brussels, December 8–10, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. Leenes, R.E. 1998. Hercules of karneades, hard cases in recht en rechtsinformatica. Dissertatie UT, Enschede: Twente University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Matthijssen, L.J. 1999. Interfacing between lawyers and computers: An architecture for knowledge-based interfaces to legal databases. Den Haag: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  17. McCarty, L.T. 1989. A language for legal discourse, I. basic features. Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law, 180–189, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  18. Mommers, L., A.H.J. Schmidt, and E.W. Oskamp. 1997. Controversies in the ontology and law debate. In Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on legal ontologies, eds. P. Visser, and R. Winkels, 1–5, Melbourne, Australia, July 4 1997.Google Scholar
  19. Moens, M.F., C. Uyttendaele, and J. Dumortier. 1997. Abstracting of legal cases: The SALOMON experience. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. 114–122, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  20. Moens, M.F. 2004. Innovative techniques for legal text retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9(1):29–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mommers, L. 2002. Applied legal epistemology: Building a knowledge-based ontology of law. Leiden University: Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
  22. Mommers, L. 2003. Application of a knowledge-based ontology of the legal domain in collaborative workspaces. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, 70–76. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  23. Mommers, L. 2005. Promoting legitimacy: Feedback in dispute resolution. In: Artificial intelligence and law. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Mommers, L., and W.J.M. Voermans. 2005. Using legal definitions to increase the accessibility of legal documents. In Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2005: The 18th annual conference, eds. M.F. Moens, and P. Spyns, 147–156.Google Scholar
  25. Oskamp, E.W. 1998. Computerondersteuning bij straftoemeting. De ontwikkeling van een databank. Arnhem: Gouda Quint.Google Scholar
  26. Putnam, H. 1975. The meaning of ‘meaning’. In Language, mind, and knowledge, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, vol. VII, ed. K. Gunderson, 131–193. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  27. Stamper, R.K. 1991. The role of semantics in legal expert systems and legal reasoning. Ratio Juris 4(2):219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Termorshuizen-Arts, M. 2003. Juridische Semantiek. Een bijdrage tot de methodologie van de rechtsvergelijking, de rechtsvinding en het juridisch vertalen. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Valente, A., and J. Breuker. 1994. Ontologies: The missing link between legal theory and AI & law. In Legal Knowledge Based Systems Jurix 1994, eds. H. Prakken, A.J. Muntjewerff, and A. Soeteman. Lelystad: VermandeGoogle Scholar
  30. Valente, A. 1995. Legal knowledge engineering: A modelling approach. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  31. Visser, P.R.S. 1995. Knowledge specification for multiple legal tasks. A case study of the interaction problem in the legal domain. Ph.D. thesis, Leiden University.Google Scholar
  32. Visser, P.R.S., and R.G.F. Winkels. 1997. Proceedings of the first international workshop on legal ontologies,LEGONT ’97, July 4, 1997. University of Melbourne, Law School.Google Scholar
  33. Visser, P.R.S., and T.J.M. Bench-Capon. 1998. A comparison of four ontologies for the design of legal knowledge systems. AI & Law Journal 6(1):27–57.Google Scholar
  34. Verheij, H.B. and Hage J.C. 1997. States of Affairs, Events, and Rules: an Abstract Model of the Law. Oskamp, A, de Mulder, R.V., van Noortwijk, C., Grütters, CA.F.M., Ashly, K. and Gordon, T. 1997. Legal Knowledge Based Systems. Jurix: The Tenth Conference, Jurix: 3–19.Google Scholar
  35. Waismann, F. 1952. Verifiability. In Logic and language (first series), ed. A. Flew. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Winkels, R.G.F., Boer, A., Breuker, J.A. and Bosscher, D. 1998. Assessment Based Legal Information Serving and Co-operative Dialogue in CLIME. Proceedings of the eleventh Jurix conference on artificial intelligence and law.Google Scholar
  37. Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell, translated from Philosophische Untersuchungen by G.E.M. Anscombe.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Law in the Information Society, Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations