Advertisement

Deontic Reasoning for Legal Ontologies

  • Cheikh Kacfah Emani
  • Yannis HaralambousEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11503)

Abstract

Many standards exist to formalize legal texts and rules. The same is true for legal ontologies. However, there is no proof theory to draw conclusions for these ontologically modeled rules. We address this gap by the proposal of a new modeling of deontic statements, and then we use this modeling to propose reasoning mechanisms to answer deontic questions i.e., questions like “Is it mandatory/permitted/prohibited to...”. We also show that using this modeling, it is possible to check the consistency of a deontic rule base. This work stands as a first important step towards a proof theory over a deontic rule base.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is funded by the Service hydrographique et océanographique de la marine (Shom) as part of the reizhmor project.

References

  1. 1.
    Gordon, T.F.: The legal knowledge interchange format (LKIF). Technical report, ESTRELLA Project http://www.estrellaproject.org/doc/Estrella-D4.1.pdf
  2. 2.
    Boley, H., Tabet, S., Wagner, G.: Design rationale of RuleML: a markup language for semantic web rules. In: 1st International Conference on SW Working, pp. 381–401 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Palmirani, M., Governatori, G., Athan, T., Boley, H., Paschke, A., Wyner, A.: LegalRuleML core specification version 1.0. OASIS Committee Specification Draft 01 / Public Review Draft 01, October 2016Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    OMG: Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR), v1.0. Technical report, Object Management Group (2008). https://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0/
  5. 5.
    Winkels, R., Boer, A., Hoekstra, R.: CLIME: lessons learned in legal information serving. In: Proceedings of the 15th ECAI, pp. 230–234. IOS Press (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Valente, A., Breuker, J.: A functional ontology of law. Artif. Intell. law 7, 241–361 (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gangemi, A.: Design patterns for legal ontology constructions. LOAIT 2007, 65–85 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lame, G.: Using NLP techniques to identify legal ontology components: concepts and relations. In: Benjamins, V.R., Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., Gangemi, A. (eds.) Law and the Semantic Web. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3369, pp. 169–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32253-5_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yurchyshyna, A., Zarli, A.: An ontology-based approach for formalisation and semantic organisation of conformance requirements in construction. Autom. Constr. 18(8), 1084–1098 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pauwels, P., et al.: A semantic rule checking environment for building performance checking. Autom. Constr. 20(5), 506–518 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kacfah Emani, C.: Automatic detection and semantic formalisation of business rules. In: Presutti, V., d’Amato, C., Gandon, F., d’Aquin, M., Staab, S., Tordai, A. (eds.) ESWC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8465, pp. 834–844. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07443-6_57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hassanpour, S., O’Connor, M.J., Das, A.K.: A framework for the automatic extraction of rules from online text. In: Bassiliades, N., Governatori, G., Paschke, A. (eds.) RuleML 2011. LNCS, vol. 6826, pp. 266–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22546-8_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kang, S., et al.: Extraction of manufacturing rules from unstructured text using a semantic framework. In: ASME 2015 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoekstra, R., Breuker, J., Di Bello, M., Boer, A., et al.: The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts. LOAIT 321, 43–63 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gordon, T.F.: Constructing legal arguments with rules in the legal knowledge interchange format (LKIF). In: Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Casellas, N., Rubino, R. (eds.) Computable Models of the Law. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4884, pp. 162–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boley, H., Paschke, A., Shafiq, O.: RuleML 1.0: the overarching specification of web rules. In: Dean, M., Hall, J., Rotolo, A., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2010. LNCS, vol. 6403, pp. 162–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16289-3_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van De Ven, S., Hoekstra, R., Breuker, J., Wortel, L., El Ali, A.: Judging amy: automated legal assessment using OWL 2. In: OWLED, vol. 432 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM TOCL 2(2), 255–287 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Searle, J.R.: The Construction of Social Reality. Simon and Schuster, New York (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IMT Atlantique, Lab-STICC, UBLBrestFrance

Personalised recommendations