Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Information Management

In this article we describe two core ontologies of law that specify knowledge that is common to all domains of law. The first one, FOLaw describes and explains dependencies between types of knowledge in legal reasoning; the second one, LRI-Core ontology, captures the main concepts in legal information processing. Although FOLaw has shown to be of high practical value in various applied European ICT projects, its reuse is rather limited as it is rather concerned with the structure of legal reasoning than with legal knowledge itself: as many other “legal core ontologies”, FOLaw is therefore rather an epistemological framework than an ontology. Therefore, we also developed LRI-Core. As we argue here that legal knowledge is based to a large extend on common-sense knowledge, LRI-Core is particularly inspired by research on abstract common-sense concepts. The main categories of LRI-Core are: physical, mental and abstract concepts. Roles cover in particular social worlds. Another special category are occurrences; terms that denote events and situations. We illustrate the use of LRI-Core with an ontology for Dutch criminal law, developed in the e-Court European project.

[1]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[2]  A. Valente,et al.  Legal Knowledge Engineering - A Modelling Approach , 1995 .

[3]  Werner Nutt,et al.  Basic Description Logics , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[4]  John Austin,et al.  The Province of Jurisprudence Determined , 1832 .

[5]  L. Thorne McCarty,et al.  A language for legal Discourse I. basic features , 1989, ICAIL '89.

[6]  Adam Pease,et al.  IEEE standard upper ontology: a progress report , 2002, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[7]  E. Tulving.  Concepts of human memory. , 1991 .

[8]  John F. Sowa,et al.  Principles of semantic networks , 1991 .

[9]  J. Raz,et al.  Legal Principles and the Limits of Law , 1972 .

[10]  W.N.H. Jansweijer,et al.  Knowledgeable information brokering , 2000 .

[11]  L. T. McCarty.  A language for legal discourse , 1989 .

[12]  Bob J. Wielinga,et al.  Using explicit ontologies in KBS development , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Aldo Gangemi,et al.  A Constructive Framework for Legal Ontologies , 2003, Law and the Semantic Web.

[14]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  Living wiht Classic: When and How to Use a KL-ONE-Like Language , 1991, Principles of Semantic Networks.

[15]  Jaap Hage,et al.  The law as a dynamic interconnected system of states of affairs: a legal top ontology , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[16]  Van de velde Breuker.  Common KADS Library for Expertise Modelling , 1994 .

[17]  André Valente,et al.  Legal modeling and automated reasoning with ON-LINE , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[18]  J. Bentham.  An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , 1945, Princeton Readings in Political Thought.

[19]  Layman E. Allen,et al.  More IA needed in AI: interpretation assistance for coping with the problem of multiple structural interpretations , 1991, ICAIL '91.

[20]  William J. Clancey,et al.  Heuristic Classification , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Exploiting isomorphism: development of a KBS to support British coal insurance claims , 1991, ICAIL '91.

[22]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean , 2002, CACM.

[23]  S. Brison.  The Intentional Stance , 1989 .

[24]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Social Roles and their Descriptions , 2004, KR.

[25]  Joost Breuker,et al.  Separating world and regulation knowledge: where is the logic , 1991, ICAIL '91.

[26]  L. Mommers,et al.  Applied legal epistemology. Building a knowledge-based ontology of the legal domain , 2002 .

[27]  J. Burnheim.  Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics , 1959 .

[28]  Andrew J. I. Jones,et al.  Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies in Deontic Logic and Computer Science , 1998 .

[29]  Jos Lehmann,et al.  On Defining Ontologies and Typologies of Objects and of Processes for Causal Reasoning , 2007 .

[30]  Rinke Hoekstra,et al.  CLIME: Lessons Learned in Legal Information Serving , 2002, ECAI.

[31]  Rinke Hoekstra,et al.  Commonsense Causal Explanation in a Legal Domain , 2007, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[32]  Guiraude Lame,et al.  Using NLP Techniques to Identify Legal Ontology Components: Concepts and Relations , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[33]  John F. Sowa,et al.  Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational foundations , 2000 .

[34]  Jaegwon Kim.  Mind in a Physical World: An Essay on the Mind-Body Problem and Mental Causation , 2001 .

[35]  S. Pinker.  The Language Instinct , 1994 .

[36]  Matthew West.  Some Industrial Experiences in the Development and Use of Ontologies , 2004 .

[37]  Friedrich Steimann,et al.  On the representation of roles in object-oriented and conceptual modelling , 2000, Data Knowl. Eng..

[38]  Radboud Winkels,et al.  Drafting and Validating Regulations: The Inevitable Use of Intelligent Tools , 2000, AIMSA.

[39]  R. V. Kralingen.  Frame-Based Conceptual Models Of Statute Law , 1995 .

[40]  A. J. Lehmann.  Causation in artificial intelligence and law : a modelling approach , 2003 .

[41]  Jan L. Top,et al.  Engineering ontologies , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[42]  Marvin Minsky,et al.  A framework for representing knowledge , 1974 .

[43]  Carole A. Goble,et al.  Ontologies in Bioinformatics , 2004, Handbook on Ontologies.

[44]  Alan L. Rector,et al.  MEDICAL INFORMATICS , 1990, The Lancet.

[45]  Radboud Winkels,et al.  Extended conceptual retrieval , 2000 .

[46]  Ramesh S. Patil,et al.  Artificial intelligence techniques for diagnostic reasoning in medicine , 1988 .

[47]  Patrick J. Hayes,et al.  The second naive physics manifesto , 1995 .

[48]  James F. Allen.  Towards a General Theory of Action and Time , 1984, Artif. Intell..

[49]  Joost Breuker,et al.  Components of Problem Solving and Types of Problems , 1994, EKAW.

[50]  Radboud Winkels,et al.  Generating exception structures for legal information serving , 1999, ICAIL '99.

[51]  Patrick Henry Winston,et al.  The psychology of computer vision , 1976, Pattern Recognit..

[52]  W. van de Velde,et al.  CommonKADS Library for Expertise Modelling: reusable problem solving components , 1994 .

[53]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Sweetening WORDNET with DOLCE , 2003, AI Mag..

[54]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE , 2002, EKAW.

[55]  Patrick J. Hayes,et al.  Naive physics I: ontology for liquids , 1989 .

[56]  J. C. C. McKinsey,et al.  On the Logic of Imperatives , 1939, Philosophy of Science.

[57]  A. Honoré,et al.  Causation in the law , 1960 .

[58]  André Valente,et al.  ON-LINE: an architecture for modelling legal information , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[59]  Robert A. Kowalski.  Programming in the year 2010 , 1990 .

[60]  G. Williams.  Causation in the Law , 1961, The Cambridge Law Journal.

[61]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A translation approach to portable ontology specifications , 1993 .

[62]  Radboud Winkels,et al.  The Deep Structure of Law , 1994 .

[63]  D. Dennett.  Précis of The Intentional Stance , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[64]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Where Mathematics Comes From , 2000 .

[65]  Tom M. van Engers,et al.  A Knowledge Engineering Approach to Comparing Legislation , 2003, KMGov.

[66]  Vipul Kashyap,et al.  Representing the UMLS Semantic Network Using OWL: (Or "What's in a Semantic Web Link?") , 2003, SEMWEB.

[67]  Marvin Minsky,et al.  A framework for representing knowledge" in the psychology of computer vision , 1975 .

[68]  Rinke Hoekstra,et al.  Core concepts of law: taking common-sense seriously , 2004 .

[69]  Joost Breuker.  Components of Problem Solving , 1994 .

[70]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Norms, Logics and Information Systems: New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science , 1998 .

[71]  Robert M. MacGregor,et al.  The Loom Knowledge Representation Language. , 1987 .

[72]  Hans Kelsen,et al.  General Theory of Norms , 1991 .

[73]  Olga Pacheco,et al.  A Role Based Model for the Normative Specification of Organized Collective Agency and Agents Interaction , 2003, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[74]  Joost Breuker,et al.  Constructing Normative Rules , 1996 .

[75]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  Computer Representation of the Law , 1985, IJCAI.

[76]  Radboud Winkels,et al.  Automated legislative drafting: generating paraphrases of legislation , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[77]  Radboud Winkels,et al.  METAlex: Legislation in XML , 2002 .

[78]  Stuart C. Shapiro.  Review of Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational foundations by John F. Sowa. Brooks/Cole 2000. , 2001 .

[79]  Peter Struss,et al.  Current Topics in Qualitative Reasoning , 2004, AI Mag..

[80]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A principled approach to developing legal knowledge systems , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[81]  S. Pinker.  How the Mind Works , 1999, Philosophy after Darwin.

[82]  Maria A. Wimmer.  Knowledge management in electronic government : 4th IFIP International Working Conference, KMGov 2003, Rhodes, Greece, May 26-28, 2003 : proceedings , 2003 .

[83]  Robert M. MacGregor,et al.  Building and (re)using an ontology of air campaign planning , 1999, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[84]  PeaseAdam,et al.  IEEE standard upper ontology: a progress report , 2002 .

[85]  Peter Carruthers,et al.  The illusion of conscious will , 2007, Synthese.

[86]  C. E. Alchourrón,et al.  The Expressive Conception of Norms , 1981 .

[87]  J. Davenport.  Editor , 1960 .