Advertisement

Legal Ontologies: The Linguistic Perspective

  • Maria Angela Biasiotti
  • Daniela Tiscornia
Chapter
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 1)

Abstract

“There is a strong relationship/dependence between concepts and their linguistic terms, change on linguistic aspects may affect the intended meaning….” (Avicenna (980–1037 a.c.)) . The paper discusses the approaches to legal ontologies from a linguistic point of view. The starting point is that legal language depends upon the linguistic factor. Legal concepts are partly coming from the ordinary language and partly arising specifically from the legal domain. Both can be identified according to two different approaches:—bottom up and—top down. The attention will be focused on the analysis of the bottom-up approach which: implies two levels of analysis at lexical and ontological level; requires the integration of methodologies and tools in complex and modular architectures generally indicated as ontology learning from texts techniques. The discussion will be based on the assumption that the relationships among meanings are inferred by the analysis of the relationships of the linguistic expressions within texts and the assumption that some logic structures exist, specific for the legal domain, standing below the linguistic expressions of the law. The integration of a theoretical conceptual model with the lexical level extracted from texts allows to respect the contextuality of the law. Therefore, the need to bridge the gap between lexicons and the ontological layer will be underlined focusing on methodologies that can be put in place for integrating these two levels.

Keywords

Domain Ontology Word Sense Legal Concept Linguistic Meaning Linguistic Resource 
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. Agnoloni, T., E. Francesconi, P. Spinosa (2007). xmLegesEditor: An OpenSource Visual XML Editor for supporting Legal National Standards. In Proceedings of the V Legislative XML Workshop, 239–251.Google Scholar
  2. Agnoloni, T., L. Bacci, E. Francesconi, W. Peters, S. Montemagni, G. Venturi (2009). A Two-Level Knowledge Approach to Support Multilingual Legislative Drafting.In J. Breuker, P. Casanovas, E. Francesconi, M. Klein (Eds.) Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web. IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, L.E., C.S. Saxon (1986). Analysis of the Logical Structure of Legal Rules by a Modernized and Formalized Version of Hohfeld’s Fundamental Legal conceptions. In A.A. Martino, F. Socci (Eds.)Automated Analysis of Legal Texts: Logic, Informatics and Law, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 385–450.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, C., F. Collin, C.J. Fillmore, J.B. Lowe (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet Project. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational linguistics, 86–90.Google Scholar
  5. Buitelaar, P., P. Ciiano, B. Magnini (Eds.) (2006). Ontology Learning from Text: An Overview. In Ontology learning. IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  6. Bacci, L., E. Francesconi, T. Agnoloni (2008). Ontology Based Legislative Drafting: Design and Implementation of a Multilingual Knowledge Resource. In A. Gangemi, J. Euzenat (Eds.) Knowledge Engineering: Practice and Patterns, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference EKAW 2008, Springer, Berlin, 364–373.Google Scholar
  7. Biagioli, C., D. Grossi (2008). Formal Aspects of Legislative Meta-Drafting. In E. Francesconi, G. Sartor, D. Tiscornia (Eds.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems—JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 192–201.Google Scholar
  8. Breuker, J., A. Valente, R. Winkels (2004). Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Information Management. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12(4): 241–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breuker, J., R. Hoekstra, A. Boer, K. van den Berg, R. Rubino, G. Sartor, M. Palmirani, A. Wyner, T. Bench-Capon (2007). OWL ontology of basic legal concepts (LKIF-Core). Deliverable 1.4, Estrella.Google Scholar
  10. Dolbey, A., M. Ellsworth, J. Scheffczyk (2006). BioFrameNet: A Domain-specific FrameNet Extension with Links to Biomedical Ontologies.In Proceedings of KRMed.Google Scholar
  11. Fellbaum, C. (Ed.) (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Fellbaum, C., P. Vossen (2008). Challenges for a Global WordNet. InOnline Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Global Interoperability for Language Resources (ICGL 2008), City University of Hongkong, January 8–12, 2008, 75–82.Google Scholar
  13. Ferraioli, L. (2007). Teoria del diritto e della Democrazia. Volume primo, Laterza.Google Scholar
  14. Francesconi, E., D. Tiscornia (2008). Building Semantic Resources for Legislative Drafting: The DALOS Project. In P. Casanovas, G. Sartor, R. Rubino, N. Casellas (Eds.)Computable Models of the Law. LNCS, vol. 4884. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fillmore, C.J., C.F. Baker (2001). Frame Semantics for Text Understanding. In Proceedings of WordNet and Other Lexical Resources Workshop, NAACL.Google Scholar
  16. Gangemi, A., M.-T. Sagri, D. Tiscornia (2003). A Constructive Framework for Legal Ontologies. In V.R. Benjamins, P. Casanovas, J. Breuker, A. Gangemi (Eds.)Law and the Semantic Web: Legal Ontologies, Methodologies, Legal Information Retrieval, and Applications. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 97–124.Google Scholar
  17. Gangemi, A. (2009). Introducing Pattern-Based Design for Legal Ontologies. In J. Breuker, P. Casanovas, M.C.A. Klein, E. Francesconi (Eds.) Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web—Channelling the Legal Information Flood. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 188 IOS Press, Amsterdam, 53–71.Google Scholar
  18. Gomez–Perez, A., D. Manzano-Macho (2003). A Survey of Ontology Learning Methods and Techniques,Ontoweb Deliverable 1.5.2003.Google Scholar
  19. Hirst, G. (2004). Ontology and the Lexicon. In S. Staab, R. Stude (Eds.) Handbook on Ontologies in Information Systems. Springer, Berlin, 209–230.Google Scholar
  20. Hoekstra, R., J. Breuker, M. Di Bello, A. Boer (2007). The LKIF Core Ontology of Basic Legal Concepts. In Proceedings of LOAIT 2007.Google Scholar
  21. Jarrar, M. (2006). Towards the Notion of Gloss, and the Adoption of Linguistic Resources in Formal Ontology Engineering. In Proceedings of the 15th International World Wide Web Conference. WWW2006, ACM press, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  22. Mustafaraj, E., M. Hoof, B. Freisleben (2006). LARC: Learning to Assign Knowledge Roles to Textual Cases. In Proceedings of 19th FLAIRS Conference. 11–13 May 2006, Melbourne Beach, FL.Google Scholar
  23. Masolo, C., S. Borgo, A. Gangemi, N. Guarino, A. Oltramari, L. Schneider (2002). WonderWeb Deliverable D17. The WonderWeb Library of Foundational Ontologies and the DOLCE Ontology. Google Scholar
  24. Masolo, C., L. Vieu, E. Bottazzi, C. Catenacci, R. Ferrario, A. Gangemi, N. Guarino (2004). Social Roles and Their Descriptions. In C. Welty (Ed.) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Whistler.Google Scholar
  25. Narayanan, S., C. Baker, C. Fillmore, M. Petruck (2003). FrameNet Meets the Semantic Web: Lexical Semantics for the Web, Vol. 2870/2003. Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Oltramari, A., A. Stellato (2008). Enriching Ontologies with Linguistic Content: An Evaluation Framework,Ontolex.Google Scholar
  27. Peters, W., D. Tiscornia, M.T. Sagri (2007). The Structuring of Legal Knowledge in Lois. In Artificial Intelligence and Law, 15(2): 117–135. Legal knowledge extraction and searching & legal ontology applications.Google Scholar
  28. Peters, W. (2009). Text Based Legal Ontology Enrichment. In N. Casellas, E. Francesconi, R. Hoekstra, S. Montemagni (Eds.) LOAIT 2009 IDT Series, Barcelona, 2009, 55–66.Google Scholar
  29. Picca D., A. Gangemi, A. Gliozzo (2008). LMM: An OWL Metamodel to Represent Heterogeneous Lexical Resources. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Marrakech, Morocco.Google Scholar
  30. Ross, A. (1957 [1951]). Tû-Tû. Harvard Law Review, March 1957; 70(5): 812–825. Originally published in Festskrift til Henry Ussing. O. Borum, K. Ilium (Eds.) Kobenhavn Juristforbundet, 1951Google Scholar
  31. Sartor, G. (2007). Possesso e accettazione di concetti giuridici: un’analisi inferenziale. In: Analisi e diritto, 67–89.Google Scholar
  32. Sheffczyk, J., C.F. Baker, S. Narayanan (2007). Ontology-Based Reasoning About Lexical Resources.InProceedings of OntoLex 2006: Interfacing Ontologies and Lexical Resources for Semantic Web Technolo-gies, LREC-06. Genova, Italy.Google Scholar
  33. Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  34. Spinosa, P., M. Cherubini, G. Giardiello, S. Marchi, S. Montemagni, G. Venturi (2009). Legal Texts Consolidation Through NLP-Based Metada Extraction. In Proceedings of ICAIL 2009. ACM press, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  35. Tiscornia, D. (2006). The Lois Project: Lexical Ontologies for Legal Information Sharing. InProceedings of the V Legislative XML Workshop, European University Institute, Fiesole, 14–16 June 2006.Google Scholar
  36. Valente, A. (2005). Types and Roles of Legal Ontologies, in Law and the Semantic Web, LNCS, vol. 3369/2005, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2005, 65–76.Google Scholar
  37. van Kralingen, R. (1993). A Conceptual Frame-Based Ontology for the Law. In Proceedings of Jurix 1993.Google Scholar
  38. Venturi, G., A. Lenci, S. Montemagni, E.M. Vecchi, M.T. Sagri, D. Tiscornia (2009). Towards a FrameNet Resource for the Legal Domain. In N. Casellas, E. Francesconi, R. Hoekstra, S. Montemagni (Eds.) LOAIT 2009, IDT Series, Barcelona, 67–76.Google Scholar
  39. Vossen, P. (Ed.) (1998). EuroWordNet: A Multilingual Database with Lexical Semantic Networks. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 179.Google Scholar
  40. Vossen, P., W. Peters, J. Gonzalo (1999). Towards a Universal Index of Meaning. In Proceedings of ACL-99 Workshop.Google Scholar
  41. Wyner, A.Z., R. Mochales-Palau, M.-F. Moens, D. Milward. Approaches to Text Mining Arguments from Legal Cases. In Francesconi E., Montemagni S., Peters W. and Tiscornia D. (Eds.) Semantic Processing of Legal Texts. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, in print.Google Scholar
  42. Wyner, A.Z., T.J.M. Bench Capon, K. Atkinson (2008). Three Senses of Argument. In P. Casanovas, G. Sartor, N. Casellas, R. Rubino (Eds.) Computable Models of the Law. Springer, LNCS, 2008, 146–162.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ittig, CNRFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations