Advertisement

Some Final Remarks and Issues for Discussion

  • Núria Casellas
Chapter
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 3)

Abstract

The previous overview of legal ontologies and the detailed description of the conceptualization and formalization process of the Ontology of Professional Judicial Knowledge, together with the proposal of the socio-legal methodological approach raise several issues, discussed in this chapter, which include the integration of bottom-up and top-down approaches in the development of legal ontologies, or the usability-reusability trade-offs.

Keywords

Knowledge Acquisition Ontology Development Legal Expert Legal Knowledge Ontology Engineering 
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. Ajani, G., G. Boella, L. Lesmo, M. Martin, A. Mazzei, D. P. Radicioni, and P. Rossi. 2010. Multilevel legal ontologies. In Semantic processing of legal texts: Where the language of law meets the law of language. ed. E. Francesconi, S. Montemagni, W. Peters, and D. Tiscornia. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 6036, 136–154. Berlin/Heidelberg: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  2. Allemang, D., and J. Hendler. 2008. Semantic Web for the working ontologist. Modeling in RDF, RDFS and OWL. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  3. Antoniou, G., and G. Wagner. 2003. Rules and defeasible reasoning on the Semantic Web. In Rules and rule markup languages for the Semantic Web, ed. M. Schroeder and G. Wagner. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 2876, 111–120. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39715-1_8.Google Scholar
  4. Berners-Lee, T. 1998, September. Why RDF model is different from the XML model. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDF-XML.html
  5. Berners-Lee, T., J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. 2001, May. The Semantic Web. Scientific American 284(5):34–43.Google Scholar
  6. Breuker, J., and R. Hoekstra. 2004a. Core concepts of law: Taking common-sense seriously. In Proceedings of Formal Ontologies in Information Systems FOIS-2004, 210–221. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  7. Breuker, J., and R. Hoekstra. 2004b. Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRI-Core, two core ontologies for law. In Proceedings of Workshop on Core Ontologies in Ontology Engineering in the 14th International Conference (EKAW’04), ed. A. Gangemi and S. Borgo, Whittlebury Hall, CEUR.Google Scholar
  8. de Nicola, A., M. Missikoff, and R. Navigli. 2009. A software engineering approach to ontology building. Information Systems 34:258–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Francesconi, E., S. Montemagni, W. Peters, and D. Tiscornia, eds. 2010b. Semantic processing of legal texts: Where the language of law meets the law of language. Lecture notes in computer science. Vol. 6036. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Hart, H. 1961. The concept of law. Clarendon law series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kelsen, H. 1991. General theory of norms. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lame, G. 2001. Constructing an ir-oriented legal ontology. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Legal Ontologies (LEGONT) in JURIX 2001, Amsterdam, ed. R. Winkels, 31–36.Google Scholar
  13. Linehan, M. H. 2007. Ontologies and rules in business models. Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, IEEE International 0:149–156.Google Scholar
  14. Milton, N. 2007. Knowledge acquisition in practice. A step-by-step guide. Decision engineering. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Musen, M. A. 1992. Dimensions of knowledge sharing and reuse. Computers and Biomedical Research 25:435–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Noy, N. F., and D. L. McGuinness. 2001. Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Technical Report SMI-2001-0880, Stanford University School of Medicine.Google Scholar
  17. Paschke, A., M. Bichler, and J. Dietrich. 2005. Contractlog: An approach to rule based monitoring and execution of service level agreements. In Rules and rule markup languages for the semantic web, ed. A. Adi, S. Stoutenburg, and S. Tabet. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 3791, 209–217. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Peters, W. 2009. Text-based legal ontology enrichment. In 3rd Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques Joint with 2nd Workshop on Semantic Processing of Legal Text (LOAIT 2009), Co-located with the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2009), ed. N. Casellas, E. Francesconi, R. Hoekstra, and S. Montemagni. IDT series, Vol. 2, 55–65. Barcelona: IDT/Huygens Editorial.Google Scholar
  19. Schreiber, G., H. Akkermans, A. Anjewierden, R. de Hoog, N. Shadbolt, W. V. de Velde, and B. Wielinga. 1999. Knowledge engineering and management. The commonKADS methodology. Cambridge: A Bradford Book. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Segaran, T., C. Evans, and J. Taylor. 2009. Programming the Semantic Web. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  21. Spyns, P., Y. Tang, and R. Meersman. 2008. An ontology engineering methodology for DOGMA. Applied Ontology 3(1–2):13–39.Google Scholar
  22. Sure, Y. 2003. Methodology, tools and case studies for ontology based knowledge management. Ph.D. thesis, Fakultät für Wirschaftwissenschaften der Universität Fridericiana zu Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
  23. Uijttenbroek, E. M., A. R. Lodder, M. C. Klein, G. R. Wildeboer, W. V. Steenbergen, R. L. Sie, P. E. Huygen, and F. van Harmelen. 2008. Retrieval of case law to provide layman with information about liability: Preliminary results of the BEST-project. In Computable models of the law, ed. P. Casanovas, G. Sartor, N. Casellas, and R. Rubino. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, Vol. 4884, 291–311. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Uszok, A., J. M. Bradshaw, M. Johnson, R. Jeffers, A. Tate, J. Dalton, and S. Aitken. 2004, July. Kaos policy management for Semantic Web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems 19:32–41.Google Scholar
  25. Valente, A., and J. Breuker. 1994a. A commonsense theory of normative systems. In Proceedings of the ECAI’94 Workshop on Artificial Normative Systems, ed. J. Breuker, 56–69. ECCAI.Google Scholar
  26. Venturi, G. 2010. Legal language and legal knowledge management applications. In Semantic processing of legal texts: Where the language of law meets the law of language, ed. E. Francesconi, S. Montemagni, W. Peters, and D. Tiscornia. Lecture notes in computer science. Vol. 6036, 3–26. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Visser, P. R. S., and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. 1998b. A comparison of four ontologies for the design of legal knowledge systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6:27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Law and TechnologyUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBellaterraSpain

Personalised recommendations