Taking stock of legal ontologies: a feature-based comparative analysis

  • Valentina LeoneEmail author
  • Luigi Di Caro
  • Serena Villata
Original Research


Ontologies represent the standard way to model the knowledge about specific domains. This holds also for the legal domain where several ontologies have been put forward to model specific kinds of legal knowledge. Both for standard users and for law scholars, it is often difficult to have an overall view on the existing alternatives, their main features and their interlinking with the other ontologies. To answer this need, in this paper, we address an analysis of the state-of-the-art in legal ontologies and we characterise them along with some distinctive features. This paper aims to guide generic users and law experts in selecting the legal ontology that better fits their needs and in understanding its specificity so that proper extensions to the selected model could be investigated.


Legal ontologies Semantic web Modelling legal knowledge 



The authors have received funding from EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 690974 (MIREL).


  1. Athan T, Governatori G, Palmirani M, Paschke A, Wyner A (2015) Legalruleml: design principles and foundations. In: Reasoning web international summer school. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–188Google Scholar
  2. Bartolini C, Muthuri R, Santos C (2015) Using ontologies to model data protection requirements in workflows. In: JSAI international symposium on artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 233–248Google Scholar
  3. Bartolini C, Giurgiu A, Lenzini G, Robaldo L (2016) Towards legal compliance by correlating standards and laws with a semi-automated methodology. In: Benelux conference on artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 47–62Google Scholar
  4. Breuker J, Hoekstra R (2004) Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRI-Core, two core ontologies for law. In: Proceedings of the EKAW04 workshop on core ontologies in ontology engineering. Northamptonshire, UK, pp 15–27Google Scholar
  5. Casellas N (2011) Legal ontology engineering: methodologies, modelling trends, and the ontology of professional judicial knowledge, vol 3. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Oliveira Rodrigues CM, de Freitas FLG, Barreiros EFS, de Azevedo RR, de Almeida Filho AT (2019) Legal ontologies over time: a systematic mapping study. Expert Syst Appl 130:12–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Distinto I, d’Aquin M, Motta E (2016) LOTED2: an ontology of european public procurement notices. Semant Web 7(3):267–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ELI Task Force (2018) ELI implementation methodology: good practices and guidelines. Publications OfficeGoogle Scholar
  9. Gandon F, Governatori G, Villata S (2017) Normative requirements as linked data. In: The 30th international conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2017)Google Scholar
  10. Gangemi A, Presutti V (2009) Ontology design patterns. In: Handbook on ontologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 221–243Google Scholar
  11. Gangemi A, Sagri M-T, Tiscornia D (2005) A constructive framework for legal ontologies. In: Law and the semantic web. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–124Google Scholar
  12. Haapio H, Hagan M (2016) Design patterns for contracts. In: Networks. Proceedings of the 19th international legal informatics symposium IRIS, pp 381–388Google Scholar
  13. Haapio H, Hagan M, Palmirani M, Rossi A (2018) Legal design patterns for privacy. In: Data protection/LegalTech. Proceedings of the 21th international legal informatics symposium IRIS, pp 445–450Google Scholar
  14. Hoekstra R, Breuker J, Di Bello M, Boer A et al (2007) The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts. LOAIT 321:43–63Google Scholar
  15. Muñoz-Soro JF, Esteban G, Corcho O, Serón F (2016) PPROC, an ontology for transparency in public procurement. Semant Web 7(3):295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Oltramari A, Piraviperumal D, Schaub F, Wilson S, Cherivirala S, Norton TB, Russell NC, Story P, Reidenberg J, Sadeh N (2018) PrivOnto: a semantic framework for the analysis of privacy policies. Semant Web, (Preprint), pp 1–19Google Scholar
  17. Palmirani M, Governatori G, Rotolo A, Tabet S, Boley H, Paschke A (2011) Legalruleml: Xml-based rules and norms. In: Rule-based modeling and computing on the semantic web. Springer, Berlin, pp 298–312Google Scholar
  18. Palmirani M, Martoni M, Rossi A, Bartolini C, Robaldo L (2018) Pronto: privacy ontology for legal reasoning. In: International conference on electronic government and the information systems perspective. Springer, Berlin, pp 139–152Google Scholar
  19. Pandit HJ, Fatema K, O’Sullivan D, Lewis D (2018) GDPRtEXT-GDPR as a linked data resource. In: European semantic web conference. Springer, Berlin, pp 481–495Google Scholar
  20. Robaldo L, Sun X (2017) Reified input/output logic: combining input/output logic and reification to represent norms coming from existing legislation. J Log Comput 27(8):2471–2503MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Steyskal S, Polleres A (2014) Defining expressive access policies for linked data using the ODRL ontology 2.0. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on semantic systems, ACM, pp 20–23Google Scholar
  22. Valente A, Breuker J et al (1994) A functional ontology of law. Towards a global expert system in law, 112–136Google Scholar
  23. van Kralingen R (1997) A conceptual frame-based ontology for the law. In: Proceedings of the first international workshop on legal ontologies, pp 6–17Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.University of TurinTurinItaly
  3. 3.University of LuxembourgEsch-sur-AlzetteLuxembourg
  4. 4.CNRS, I3S LaboratorySophia AntipolisFrance

Personalised recommendations