A Criminal Domain Ontology for Modelling Legal Norms

  • Mirna El GhoshEmail author
  • Habib Abdulrab
  • Hala Naja
  • Mohamad Khalil
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10640)


This work discusses an ontological model for legal norms of the criminal domain. An ontology-based modelling approach is proposed for this purpose. The approach tends to build a criminal domain ontology and then formalize the legal rules based on it. A middle-out approach is applied for building the criminal domain ontology based on ontology reuse and modularization processes. This approach tends to simplify the complexity and difficulty of ontology building process by reusing foundational and legal core ontologies.


Criminal domain ontology Modelling legal norms Ontology reuse Ontology modularization Logic rules 


  1. 1.
    McCarty, L.T.: Intelligent legal information systems: problems and prospects. Rutgers Comput. Technol. Law J. 9(2), 265–294 (1983)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Valente, A., Breuker, J.: Ontologies: the missing link between legal theory and AI & Law. In: Proceedings of Jurix 1994, pp. 138–149 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Gog, R., van Engers, T.M.: Modelling legislation using natural language. In: 2001 IEEE Systems Proceedings, Man and Cybernetics Conference, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Machado, A.L., de Oliveira, J.M.P.: A legal ontology of relationships for civil law system. In: 1st Joint Workshop ONTO.COM/ODISE Proceedings on Ontologies in Conceptual Modeling and Information Systems Engineering (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kelsen, H.: Pure Theory of Law. The Lawbook Exchange, LTD, Clark (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gordon, T.F., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Rules and norms: requirements for rule interchange languages in the legal domain. In: Governatori, G., Hall, J., Paschke, A. (eds.) RuleML 2009. LNCS, vol. 5858, pp. 282–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04985-9_26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gostojic, S., Milosavljevic, B.: Ontological model of legal norms for creating and using legal acts. IPSI BgD J. 9(1), 19–25 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Von Wright, G.H.: Norm and Action. Routledge, London (1963)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Biagioli, C.: Towards a legal rules functional micro-ontology. In: 1st International Workshop Proceedings on Legal Ontologies, University of Melbourne, Law School, Australia (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heflin, J., Hendler, J.: Semantic interoperability on the web. In: Extreme Markup Languages 2000, p. 16 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ouksel, A.M., Sheth, A.: Semantic interoperability in global information systems. ACM SIGMOD Rec. 28, 5–12 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Palmirani, M., Ognibene, T, Cervone, L.: Legal rules, text and ontologies over time. In: Proceedings of RuleML@ECAI 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davis, R., King, J.: The origin of rule-based systems in AI. In: Buchanan, B.G., Shortlie, E.H. (eds.) Rule Based Expert Systems-The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project, pp. 20–52. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1984)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kelsen, H.: General Theory Of Norms. Clarendon, Oxford (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palmirani, M., Contissa, G., Rubino, R.: Fill the Gap in the Legal Knowledge Modelling. In: RuleML 2009 roceedings, pp. 305–314 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boella, G., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., van der Torre, L.: Lex Minus Dixit Quam Voluit, Lex Magis Dixit Quam Voluit: a formal study on legal compliance and interpretation. In: Casanovas, P., Pagallo, U., Sartor, G., Ajani, G. (eds.) AICOL -2009. LNCS, vol. 6237, pp. 162–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-16524-5_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bench-Capon, T., Coenen, F.: Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artif. Intell. Law 1(1), 65–86 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Biagioli, C., Grossi, D.: Formal aspects of legislative meta-drafting. In: Francesconi, E., Sartor, G., Tiscornia, D. (eds.) Proceedings of 2008 Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: 21st Annual Conference, 192–201. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sartor, G.: A formal model of legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 7(2), 177–211 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gordon, T.: The Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF). University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Gordon, T.F.: Isomorphism and argumentation. In: ICAIL 2009 Proceedings, pp. 11–20 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karpf, J.: Quality assurance of legal expert systems. Jurimatics no. 8, Copenhagen Business School (1989)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cherubini, M., Tiscornia, D.: An ontology-based model of procedural norms and regulated procedures. In: eGov International Conference Proceedings (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bench-Capon, T., Visser, R.S.: Ontologies in legal information systems; the need for explicit specifications of domain conceptualisations. In: 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law Proceedings, pp. 132–141 (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Breuker, J., Casanovas, P., Klein, M.C., Francesconi, E.: The flood, the channels and the dykes: managing legal information in a globalized and digital world. In: Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web - Channelling the Legal Information Flood. IOS Press (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Valente, A.: Legal knowledge engineering: a modelling approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam (1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Piovesan, L., Molino, G., Terenziani, P.: An ontological knowledge and multiple abstraction level decision support system in healthcare. Decis. Anal. 1(1), 8 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    El Ghosh, M., Naja, H., Abdulrab, H., Khalil, M.: Towards a middle-out approach for building legal domain reference ontology. Int. J. Knowl. Eng. 2(3), 109–114 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Model. Universal Press, Veenendaal (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hoekstra, R., Breuker, J., Di Bello, M., Boer, A.: The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts. In: Casanovas, P., Biasiotti, M.A., Francesconi, E., Sagri, M.T. (eds.) 2nd Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 43–63 (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    El Ghosh, M., Naja, H., Abdulrab, H., Khalil, M.: Ontology learning process as a bottom-up strategy for building domain-specific ontology from legal texts. In: 9th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence proceedings, ICAART, vol. 2, pp. 473–480 (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pinto, H., Martins, J.: Ontology integration: how to perform the process. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Proceedings, pp. 71–80 (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bontas, E.P., Mochol, M., Tolksdorf, R.: Case studies on ontology reuse. In: IKNOW 2005 International Conference on Knowledge Management Proceedings, vol. 74 (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Caldarola, E.G., Picariello, A., Rinaldim A.M.: An approach to ontology integration for ontology reuse in knowledge based digital ecosystems. In: 7th International Conference on Management of Computational and Collective intElligence in Digital EcoSystems Proceedings, pp. 1–8. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Modoni, G., Caldarola, E., Terkaj, W., Sacco, M.: The knowledge reuse in an industrial scenario: a case study. In: eKNOW 2015, 7th International Conference on Information, Process, and Knowledge Management, pp. 66–71 (2015)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hois, J., Bhatt, M., Kutz, O.: Modular ontologies for architectural design. In: FOMI-2009, Proceedings of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vicenza, Italy, vol. 198. IOS Press (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: A logical framework for modularity of ontologies. In: IJCAI 2007 Proceedings, pp. 298–303. AAAI Press (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guizzardi, G.: The role of foundational ontology for conceptual modeling and domain ontology representation. In: 7th International Baltic Conference on Databases and Information Systems Proceedings, pp. 17–25 (2006)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Keet, M.: The use of foundational ontologies in ontology development: an empirical assessment. In: 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference Proceedings, Greece, vol. 6643, pp. 321–335 (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: Using UFO as a foundation for general conceptual modeling languages. In: Poli, R., Healy, M., Kameas, A. (eds.) Theory and Application of Ontologies. Springer, Dordrecht (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-8847-5_8 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: Towards ontological foundations for agent modelling concepts using the unified foundational ontology (UFO). Agent-Oriented Inf. Syst. II(3508), 110–124 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. Ph.D. Thesis. Telematica Instituut, Enschede, The Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Guerson, J., Sales, T.P., Guizzardi, G., Almeida, J.P.A.: OntoUML lightweight editor: a model-based environment to build, evaluate and implement reference ontologies. In: IEEE 19th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW), pp. 144–147. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Guizzardi, G., Falbo, R.A., Guizzardi, R.S.S.: Grounding software domain ontologies in the unified foundational ontology (UFO): the case of the ODE software process ontology. In: IberoAmerican Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Software Environments Proceedings, pp. 244–251 (2008)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., Falbo, A., Guizzardi, R.S.S., Almeida, J.P.A.: Towards ontological foundations for the conceptual modeling of events. In: 32th International Conference Proceedings, ER 2013, pp. 327–341 (2013)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Barcelos, P.P.F., dos Santos, V.A., Silva, F.B., Monteiro, M.E., Garcia, A.S.: An automated transformation from OntoUML to OWL and SWRL. In: ONTOBRAS 2013, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1041, pp. 130–141 (2013)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Caldarola, E.G., Picariello, A., Rinaldi, A.M.: An approach to ontology integration for ontology reuse in knowledge based digital ecosystems. In: 7th International Conference on Management of Computational and Collective intElligence in Digital EcoSystems Proceedings, pp. 1–8. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Euzenat, J.: Semantic precision and recall for ontology alignment evaluation. In: IJCAI Proceedings, pp. 348–353 (2007)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Borgida, A., Serafini, L.: Distributed description logics: assimilating information from peer sources. J. Data Semant. 1, 153–184 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jimenez-Ruiz, E., Cuenca-Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Berlanga, R.: Ontology integration using mappings: towards getting the right logical consequences. Technical report, Universitat Jaume, University of Oxford (2008)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P., Sattler, U.: OWL 2: the next step for OWL. J. Web Semant. 6(4), 309–322 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wang, Y., Liu, W., Bell, D.: A concept hierarchy based ontology mapping approach. In: KSEM, pp. 101–113 (2010)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Miller, G.A.: WordNet: a lexical database for english. Commun. ACM 38, 39–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Logic of violations: a Gentzen system for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations. Australas. J. Log. 4, 193–215 (2006)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sartor, G., Legal concepts: an inferential approach. In: European University Institute, Working Papers Law No. 2008/03 (2008).[10.01.2009]
  56. 56.
    Fiorentini, X., Sudarsan, R., Suh, H., Lee, J., Sriram, R.: An analysis of description logic augmented with domain rules for the development of product models. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 10, 1–13 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Antoniou, G., Damasio, C.V., Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., Kifer, M., Maluszynski, J., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Combining rules and ontologies - a survey. Deliverables I3-D3, REWERSE, Accessed Mar 2005
  58. 58.
    Valente, A., Breuker, J., Brouwer, B.: Legal modeling and automated reasoning with ON-LINE. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 51(6), 1079–1125 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rubino, R., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: An OWL ontology of fundamental legal concepts. In: van Engers, T. (ed.) 2006 19th Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems proceedings, JURIX 2006, pp. 101–110. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Breuker, J., Hoekstra, R., Boer, A., Van den Berg, K., Sartor, G., Rubino, R., Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T. Palmirani, M.: Deliverable 1.4: OWL ontology of basic legal concepts (LKIF-Core). University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2007)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gostojić, S., Milosavljević, B., Konjović, Z.: Ontological model of legal norms for creating and using legislation. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 10(1), 151–171 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mirna El Ghosh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Habib Abdulrab
    • 1
  • Hala Naja
    • 2
  • Mohamad Khalil
    • 3
  1. 1.LITIS, INSARouenFrance
  2. 2.Faculty of SciencesLebanese UniversityTripoliLebanon
  3. 3.Faculty of Engineering, CRSI Research CenterLebanese UniversityTripoliLebanon

Personalised recommendations