Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Law and the Semantic Web, an Introduction

  • Chapter
Law and the Semantic Web

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3369))

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce the role of Semantic Web technology for the legal domain. We will briefly discuss the current use of Information Technology in the legal domain, followed by an introduction to the Semantic Web. We then will put forward what we see as the particularities of the legal domain that need to be taken into account by technological solutions. Finally, we will explain how the articles in this volume contribute to the application of Semantic Web technology in the legal domain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abel, R.L. (ed.): Lawyers: A Critical Reader. The New Press, New York (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gray, P.N.: Artificial Legal Intelligence. Aldershot, Dartmouth (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: Computer Representation of the Law. In: Proceedings of IJCAI-1985, pp. 1269–1270. Morgan Kaufmann, Altos (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.J.: The use of logical models in legal problem solving. Ratio Juris 2(3), 201–218 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alchourrón, C., Martino, A.: A Sketch of Logic without Truth. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL-1989), pp. 165–179. ACM, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sergot, A., Jones, M.: Deontic Logic in the Representation of Law: Towards a Methodology. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1(1), 45–46 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ashley, K., Rissland, E.: A case based approach to modelling legal expertise. IEEE Expert, 70–77 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Valente, A.: Legal Knowledge Engineering: A Modelling Approach. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Rodrigo, L., Blázquez, M., Casanovas, P., Poblet, M.: D10.1.1. Before Analysis. Case Study-Intelligent integrated support for legal professionals. State of the Art. EU-IST, IST-2003-506826 SEKT: Semantically Enabled Knowledge Technologies

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fabri, M., Contini, F. (eds.): Justice and Technology in Europe : How ICT is changing the Judicial Business, The Hague, Kluwer Int. Law (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ayuso, M., et al.: 2003 Jueces jóvenes en España 2002. Análisis estadístico de las encuestas a los jueces en su primer destino (Promociones 48/49 y 50). Internal Report for the General Council of the Judiciary, within the framework of the Project Observatory of Judicial Culture, SEC-2001-2581-C02-01/02

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hokkanen, J., Lauritsen, M.: Knowledge tools for legal knowledge tool makers. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10, 295–302 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lawrence, S., Giles, C.L.: Accessibility of Information on the Web. Nature 400, 107–109 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American, May 17 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Studer, R., Benjamins, V.R., Fensel, D.: Knowledge Engineering, Principles and Methods. Data & Knowledge Engineering 25(1-2), 161–197 (1998)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/

  17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

  18. http://dmoz.org/

  19. See for example: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/chosen_demos_rationale_report/hp-applications-survey.html , http://challenge.semanticweb.org/ , and http://elcano.isoco.net

  20. Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M., Corcho, O.: Ontological Engineering, with examples from the areas of Knowledge Management, e-Commerce and the Semantic Web. Springer, Berlin (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Davies, J., Fensel, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.): Towards the Semantic Web. Ontology-Driven knowledge Management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  22. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_web

  23. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/03/07/buildingsw.html

  24. http://www.esperonto.net

  25. Cerf, V.G.: Internet and the Justice System. Washington Law Review 79(1), 25–30 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Endeshaw, A.: Web Services and the Law: A Scketch of the Potential Issues. International Journal of Law and Information Technology 11(3), 251–273 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Caral, J.M.E.A.: Lessons from ICANN: Is Self-Regulation of the Internet Fundamentally Flawed? International Journal of Law and Information Technology 12(1), 1–31 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sylverman, G.M.: Rise of the Machines: Justice Information Systems and the Question of Public Access to Court Records Over the Internet. Washington Law Review 79 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Davies, N.J., Fensel, D., Richardson, M.: The future of Web Services. BT Technology Journal 22(1), 118–130 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Susskind, R.: Transforming the Law. In: Essays on Technology, Justice and the Legal Marketplace. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mountain, D.: XML E-Contracts: Documents That Describe Themselves. International Journal of Law and Information Technology 11(3), 274–285 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Benoliel, D.: Cyberspace Technological Standardization: An Institutional Theory Retrospective. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 18, 1259 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Benoliel, D.: Technological Standards, INC: Rethinking Cyberspace Regulatory Epistemology. California Law Review 92, 1069 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Biegel, S.: Beyond our control? Confronting the limits of our legal system in the age of cyberspace. The MIT Press, MASS. (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dahm, A.L.: Database Protection vs. Deep Linking. Texas Law Review 82, 1053–1089 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lessig, L.: The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. Random House, New York (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  37. http://www.creativecommons.org

  38. Hunter, D.: Cyberspace as place and the tragedy of the digital anticommons. California Law Review 91(2), 439–519 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schwartz, P.M.: Property, Privacy, and Personal Data. Harvard Law Review 117(7), 2055 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Winkels, R., Boer, A., Hoekstra, R.: CLIME: Lessons Learned in Legal Information Serving. In: van Harmelen, F. (ed.) Proceedings of ECAI-2002, pp. 230–234. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gruber, T.R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hohfeld, W.N.: Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. In: Cooke, W.W. (ed.). Yale University Press, New Haven (1919)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Allen, L.E., Saxon, C.S.: Better Language, Better Thought, Better Communication: The A-HOHFELD Language for Legal Analysis. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL-1995). ACM, New York (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  44. McCarty, L.T.: A Language for Legal Discourse: I. Basic Features. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM Press, New York (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  45. van Kralingen, R.W.: Frame-based Conceptual Models of Statute Law. Kluwer Law Intl., Amsterdam (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Visser, R.S.P., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Ontologies in the Design of Legal Knowledge Systems. Towards a Library of Legal Domain Ontologies. In: First International Workshop on Legal Ontologies, Melbourne Law School, Victoria (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Visser, R.S.P., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: A Comparison of Four Ontologies for the Design of Legal Knowledge Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6, 27–57 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gangemi, A., Breuker, J.: Section 5. Harmonizing Legal Ontologies. In: Deliverable 3.4. Harmonisation perspectives of some promising content standards. Ontoweb SIG on Content Standards Legal Ontologies Working Group, Project IST-2000-29243 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Breuker, J., Gangemi, A., Tiscornia, D., Winkels, R. (eds.): ICAIL03 Wks on Legal Ontologies, Edinburgh (2003), http://lri.jur.uva.nl/~winkels/legontICAIL2003.html

  50. Jarrar, M., Salaun, A. (eds.): First Workshop on Regulatory Ontologies, OTM Workshops. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jarrar, M., Gangemi, A. (eds.): Second Workshop on Regulatory Ontologies. OTM Workshops. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  52. http://ontology.ip.rm.cnr.it/onto/legontoweb.html

  53. Winkels, R., Boer, A., Hoekstra, R.: METAlex: An XML Standard for Legal Documents. In: Proceedings of the XML Europe Conference, London, UK (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Aikenhead, M.: Recycling law? International Journal of Law and Information Technology 4(3) (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  55. A Fourth Framework European Project IST 25414, 1998-2001, see http://www.bmtech.co.uk/clime/index.html

  56. Gangemi, A., Pisanelli, D.M., Steve, G.A.: Formal Ontology Framework to Represent Norm Dynamics. In: Second International Workshop on Legal Ontologies, University of Amsterdam (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  57. A Fifth Framewrok European Project IST 28199, 2000-2003. See http://www.intrasoft-intl.com/ecourt

  58. A Fifth Framework European Project IST 28125. See http://www.lri.jur.uva.nl/~epower

  59. Boer, A., van Engers, T., Winkels, R.: Using Ontologies for Comparing and Harmonizing Legislation. In: Proceedings of ICAIL2003. ACM Press, New York (2003) ISBN 1-58113-747-8

    Google Scholar 

  60. http://www.ittig.cnr.it/Ricerca/UnitaEng.php?Id=11&T=4

  61. Finke, N.D.: TEI Extensions for Legal Text. In: Text Encoding Initiative Tenth Anniversary User Conference (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  62. http://www.normainrete.it

  63. http://www.lexml.de/mission_english.htm

  64. http://www.legalxml.org/

  65. A Sixth Framework European Project IST-2003-506826. SEKT: Semantically Enabled Knowledge Technologies, http://www.sekt-project.com

  66. Benjamins, V.R., Contreras, J., Casanovas, P., Poblet, M., Blázquez, M., Rodrigo, L.: The SEKT Legal Use Case Components: Ontology and Architecture. In: Gordon, T.F. (ed.) 17th Annual Conference in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX, Berlin, 8-10 December, pp. 69–77 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Amselek, P., MacCormick, N.: Controversies about Law’s Ontology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Paliwala, A.: An Intellectual Celebration: A Review of the Jurix Legal Knowledge Based Systems Scholarship. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8, 317–335 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Boer, A., Hoekstra, R., Winkels, R.: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Proceedings of JURIX 2002, pp. 1–10. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  70. http://www.metalex.nl

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Intelligent Software Components (iSOCO), Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Spain

    V. Richard Benjamins

  2. Institute for Law and Technology (IDT),UAB Sociolegal Studies Group (GRES), Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08193, Cerdanyola, Barcelona, Spain

    Pompeu Casanovas

  3. Leibniz Center for Law, University of Amsterdam, 1000 BA, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Joost Breuker

  4. Laboratory for Applied Ontology (ISTC-CNR), Viale Marx, 15, 00137, Rome, Italy

    Aldo Gangemi

Authors
  1. V. Richard Benjamins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pompeu Casanovas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joost Breuker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aldo Gangemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. iSOCO, P.O. Box, Spain

    V. Richard Benjamins

  2. Institute of Law and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain

    Pompeu Casanovas

  3. Leibniz Center for Law, University of Amsterdam,  

    Joost Breuker

  4. Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology, Italian Research Council (ISTC-CNR), Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Rome, Italy

    Aldo Gangemi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Benjamins, V.R., Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., Gangemi, A. (2005). Law and the Semantic Web, an Introduction. In: Benjamins, V.R., Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., Gangemi, A. (eds) Law and the Semantic Web. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3369. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32253-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32253-5_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-25063-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-32253-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation