Skip to main content

A Constructive Framework for Legal Ontologies

  • Chapter
Law and the Semantic Web

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3369))

Abstract

The increasing development of legal ontologies seems to offer interesting solutions to legal knowledge formalization, which in past experiences lead to a limited exploitation of legal expert systems for practical use. The paper describes how a constructive approach to ontology can provide useful components to create newly designed legal decision support systems either as local or Web-based semantic services. We describe the relation of our research to AI&Law and legal philosophy, the components of our Core Legal Ontology, the JurWordNet semantic lexicon, and some examples of use of legal ontologies for both norm conformity and compatibility. Our legal ontologies are based on DOLCE+, an extension of the DOLCE foundational ontology developed in the WonderWeb and Metokis EU projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Winkels, R. (ed.): Second International Workshop on Legal Ontologies (LEGONT), at the Jurix Conference (2002), http://lri.jur.uva.nl/winkels/legont.html

  2. Breuker, J., Gangemi, A., Tiscornia, D., Winkels, R. (eds.): ICAIL03 Wks on Legal Ontologies, Edinburgh (2003), http://lri.jur.uva.nl/winkels/legontICAIL2003.html

  3. Jarrar, M., Salaun, A. (eds.): First Workshop on Regulatory Ontologies, OTM Workshops. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jarrar, M., Gangemi, A. (eds.): Second Workshop on Regulatory Ontologies, OTM Workshops. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Benjamins, R., Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., Gangemi, A.: Law and the Semantic Web. Springer, Berlin (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sagri, M.T., Tiscornia, D., Gangemi, A.: An Ontology-based Approach for Representing “Bundle-of-rights”. In: Jarrar, M., Gangemi, A. (eds.) Second International Workshop on Regulatory Ontologies, in OTM Workshops. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gangemi, A., Prisco, A., Sagri, M.T., Steve, G., Tiscornia, D.: Some ontological tools to support legal regulatory compliance, with a case study. In: Jarrar, M., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the WORM03 Workshop at OTM Conference. Springer, Berlin (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Alexy, R.: A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Allen, L.E., Saxon, C.S.: Analysis of the Logical Structure of Legal Rules by a Modernized and Formalized Version of Hohfeld’s Fundamental Legal Conceptions. In: Martino, A.A., Socci, F.S. (eds.) Automated Analysis of Legal Texts, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: The Use of Logical Models in Legal Problem Solving. In: Narayan, A., Bennum, M. (eds.) Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Ablex (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sergot, M.: The Representation of Law in Computer Programs. In: Capon, T.B. (ed.) Knowledge Based Systems and legal Applications, pp. 3–68. Academic Press, London (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2) (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hamfelt, A., Barklund, J.: Hierarchical Representation of Legal Knowledge with Metaprogramming in logic. In: Proceedings of First Compulog-NetWorkshop, Imperial College, London (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bench Capon, T.J.M., Coenen, F.P.: Isomorphism and Legal Knowledge-based systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law: An International Journal 1(1), 65–86 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jones, A., Sergot, M.: On the Characterization of Law and Computer Sustems: The Normative Systems Perspective. In: a cura di J. Meyer, Ch., e Wieringa, R.J.: Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley, UK (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kolodner, J.L.: Case-based reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, Calif. (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Breuker, J., den Haan, N.: Separating world and regulation knowledge: where is the logic. In: Sergot, M. (ed.) Processing of the third internetional conference on AI and Law, Association of Computing Machinery, New York (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chisholm, R.M.: Contrary to duty imperative and deontic logic. Analysis 24 (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hohfeld, W.N.: Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in legal reasoning. Yale Law Journal XXIII(1), 16–59 (1913)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jones, A., Sergot, M.: A Formal Characterisation of Institutional Power. Journal of IGPL 4(3), 429–445 (1996)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Bowen, K.A., Kowalski, R.: Amalgamating Language and Metalanguage in Logic Programming. In: Tarnlund, C. (ed.) Logic Programming, pp. 153–172. Academic Press, London (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Moore, M.: Legal Reality: A Naturalist Approach to Legal Ontology. Law and Philosophy 21, 619–705 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Forbus, K., Mostek, T., Ferguson, R.: An analogy ontology for integrating analogical processing and first-principles reasoning. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2002 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Karmiloff-Smith, A.: Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gangemi, A., Mika, P.: Understanding the Semantic Web through Descriptions and Situation. In: Meersman, R., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of ODBASE 2003. Springer, Berlin (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Masolo, C., Vieu, L., Bottazzi, E., Catenacci, C., Ferrario, R., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N.: Social Roles and their Descriptions. In: Welty, Dubois (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A.: The WonderWeb Library of Foundational Ontologies, IST 2001-33052 Wonder Web (2003), http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/deliverables/documents/D18.pdf

  28. Gangemi, A., Catenacci, C., Lehmann, J., Borgo, S.: Task taxonomies for knowledge content, EU 6FP METOKIS Project, D07 (2004), http://metokis.salzburgresearch.at

  29. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): Description logic handbook. Cambridge UP, Cambridge (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Eco, U.: Kant e l’ornitorinco, Milano, Bompiani (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Visser, P., Capon, T.B.: Ontologies in the Design of Legal Knowledge Systems, towards a Library of Legal Domain Ontologies. In: Proceedings of Jurix 1999, Leuven, Belgique (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Dean, M., Schreiber, G.: Owl web ontology language reference, W3c candidaterecommendation, World Wide Web Consortium (August 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hart, H.L.A.: The Concept of Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1961)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Alchourrón, C.E., Buligyn, E.: Normative System. Springer, Wien (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Searle, J.: The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press, N.Y. (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gangemi, A., Bottazzi, E., Catenacci, C., Lehmann, J.: From Collective Intentionality to Intentional Collectives: An Ontological Perspective. In: Castelfranchi, C., Tummolini, L. (eds.) International Conference on Collective Intentionality (2004)(to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lindhal, L.: Position and Change. A study in Law and Logic (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kanger, S.: Law and Logic. Theoria 38, 105–132 (1972)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Jones, A.: A logical Framework. In: Pitt, J. (ed.) Open Agents Societies: Normative Specifications in Multi-Agent Systems. Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pörn, I.: Action Theory and Social Science. In: Some Formal Models. Reidel, Dordrechtz (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lehmann, J., Borgo, S., Masolo, C., Gangemi, A.: Causality and Causation in DOLCE. In: Vieu, L., Varzi, A.C. (eds.) Third International Conference on Formal Ontology and Information Systems (FOIS 2004). IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sagri, M.T.: Progetto per lo sviluppo di una rete lessicale giuridica on line attraverso la specializzazione di ItalWordnet, in Informatica e Diritto, ESI, Napoli (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Roventini, A., Alonge, A., Bertagna, F., Calzolari, N., et al.: ItalWordNet: Building a Large Semantic Database for the Automatic Treatment of Italian. In: “Linguistica Computazionale”, Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, Pisa-Roma (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Vossen, P. (ed.): EuroWordNet A Multilingual Database with Lexical Semantic Networks. Kluwer Academic publishers, Dordrecht (1998)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Fellbaum, C. (ed.): WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Gangemi, A., Battaglia, M., Catenacci, C.: The Inflammation Ontology Design Pattern. In: Pisanelli, D.M. (ed.) Biomedical Ontologies. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Boer, A., van Engers, T., Winkels, R.: Using Ontologies for Comparing and Harmonizing Legislation. In: Proceedings of the 9th ICAIL Conference, Edinburgh (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Gärdenfors, P.: The Dynamics of Normative Systems (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Biagioli C.: An XML editor for Legislative drafting. JURIX wks on E-Government (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sartor, G.: Legal Reasoning and Normative Conflicts. In: Reasoning with Inconsistency (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Gangemi, A., Pisanelli, D.M., Steve, G.: A Formal Ontology Framework to represent Norm Dynamics. In: Proc. of Second International Workshop on Legal Ontologies, Amsterdam (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ross, A.: Directives and Norms, London (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  53. McCormick, N.: Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Dworkin, R.: Taking Rights Seriously, 2nd edn. Duckworth, London (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  55. von Wright, G.E.: Norm and Action. Routledge, London (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Valente, A., Breuker, J.: A Functional Ontology of Law. In: Preatti del Convegno del Venticinquennale IDG, Firenze, pp. 3–6 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gangemi, A., Sagri, MT., Tiscornia, D. (2005). A Constructive Framework for Legal Ontologies. In: Benjamins, V.R., Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., Gangemi, A. (eds) Law and the Semantic Web. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3369. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32253-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32253-5_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-25063-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-32253-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics