Counterfactuals and Hybrid Reasoning in an Ontolog

  • El Hassan Bezzazi


In this paper, we present a formal legal cybercrime ontology using concrete tools. The purpose is to show how law articles and legal cases could be formally defined so that the problem of case resolution is reduced to a classification problem as long as cases are seen as subclasses of articles. Secondly, we show how counterfactual reasoning may be held over it within the framework of Description Logic. Lastly, we investigate the implementation of a hybrid system which is based both on this ontology and on a non-monotonic rule-based system which is used to execute an external ontology dealing with a technical domain in order to clarify some of the technical concepts.


Description Logic Formal Ontology Malicious Action Atomic Concept Technical Concept 
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.


  1. Asaro, C., Biasiotti, M.A., Guidotti, P., Papini, M., Sagri, M.T., Tiscornia, D.A (2003) Domain Ontology: Italian Crime Ontology, ICAIL 2003 Workshop on Legal Ontologies, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G. and Vlahavas, I. (2006) A Defeasible Logic Reasoner for the Semantic Web, 2006, International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 2∶1.Google Scholar
  3. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. and Visser, P.R.S. (1997) Ontologies in Legal Information Systems: The Need for Explicit Specifications of Domain Conceptualisations. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York .Google Scholar
  4. Bezzazi, H. (2006). On some inferences based on stratified forward chaining: an application to e-Government. Proc 15th Intl Conf on Information System Development, Springer Verlag, London .Google Scholar
  5. Breuker, J., Elhag, L., Petkov, E. and Winkels, R. (2002). Ontologies for legal information serving and knowledge management. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. De Lamberterie, I. and Videau, M. (2006). Regards croisés de juristes et d'informaticiens sur la sécurité informatique. In Symposium sur la Sécurité des Technologies de l'Information et des Communications. Rennes, mai-juin.Google Scholar
  7. Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R. and Tompits, H. (2004) Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. In D. Dubois, C Welty, and M.-A. Williams, editors, Proceedings 9th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Whistler, British, Columbia, Canada, 141–151. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  8. Ginsberg, M.L. (1986) Counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence 30:35–79.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Légifrance (2007) Retrieved February 4, 2007, from Web site
  10. Lewis, D. (1973) Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Protégé (2007) Retrieved February 4, 2007, from Web site
  12. Racer (2007) Retrieved February 4, 2007, from Web site
  13. Sowa, J.F. (2007) Ontology. Retrieved February 4, 2007, from Web site
  14. Valente, A. (1995) Legal Knowledge Engineering: A Modelling Approach. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  15. van Laarschot, R., van Steenbergen, W., Stuckenschmidt, H., Lodder, A. and van Harmelen, F. (2005) The Legal Concepts and the Layman's Terms. Proceedings of the 18th International JURIX conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • El Hassan Bezzazi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations