Advertisement

Empirically Grounded Developments of Legal Ontologies: A Socio-Legal Perspective

  • Pompeu Casanovas
  • Núria Casellas
  • Joan-Josep Vallbé
Chapter
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 1)

Abstract

This paper shows the multiple relationships between empirical data and semantic content in the legal field. One of the well-known problems of ontology construction is the “knowledge acquisition bottleneck problem” pointed out many years ago by Edward Feigenbaum and others. This problem has not been completely solved in the next generation of Semantic Web developments. It is our contention that both an accurate description of the legal environment and well-grounded previous sociological studies may help to address it in a more satisfactory way. This means adopting a user-centered approach to legal ontologies, in what we will call an “iterative and integrated pragmatic cycle” involving legal theorists, socio-legal researchers, professional people (lawyers, magistrates, prosecutors…) and computer scientists. We describe the example of how the ontology of iuriservice was built up.

Keywords

Knowledge Acquisition Legal Theory Legal Culture Legal Expert Legal Knowledge 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this paper has been developed within the framework of the following projects: SEC2001-2581-C02-01; FIT-150500-2002-562; FIT-150500-2003-198; EU-IST 2003-506826 SEKT; SEJ2006-10695; FIT-350101-2006-26.; FIT-350100-2007-161; TSI-020501-2008, 2008–2010; CSO-2008-05536-SOCI.

References

  1. Aakhus, M., A. Aldrich (2002). Crafting Communication Activity: Understanding FeliCity in ‘I wish I…’ Compliments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(4): 395–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abel, R.L. (Ed.) (1995). The Law & Society Reader. New York University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  3. Abel, R.L. (1995). What We Talk About When We Talk About Law. In R. Abel (Ed.) The Law & Society Reader. New York University Press, New York, NY, 1–10.Google Scholar
  4. Almond, G., S. Verba (1963). The Civic Culture. Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  5. Álvarez, R., M. Ayuso, M. Bécue (2005). Statistical Study of Judicial Practices. In V.R. Benjamins, P. Casanovas, J. Breuker, A. Gangemi (Eds.) Law and the Semantic Web. Legal Ontologies, Methodologies, Legal Information Retrieval, and Applications, LNCS, vol. 3369. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 25–35.Google Scholar
  6. Amselek, P., N. MacCormick (Eds.) (1991). Controversies About Law’s Ontology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  7. Ayuso, M., M. Bécue, R. Álvarez, O. Valencia, R. Álvarez, M.L. Hernández, M. Santolino (2003, Septiembre). Jueces jóvenes en españa (2002). Análisis estadístico de las encuestas a los jueces en su primer destino (promociones 48/49 y 50). Análisis comparativo con jueces de mayor experiencia. SEC-2001-2581-C02-01/02 informe interno Report n.2, Consejo General del Poder Judicial [General Countrycil of the Judiciary].Google Scholar
  8. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (2001). Task Neutral Ontologies, Common Sense Ontologies and Legal Information Systems, 2nd International Workshop on Legal Ontologies.Google Scholar
  9. Benjamins, V.R., P. Casanovas, J. Contreras, J.M. López-Cobo, L. Lemus (2005). Iuriservice: An Intelligent Frequently Asked Questions System to Assist Newly Appointed Judges. In V.R. Benjamins, P. Casanovas, J. Breuker, A. Gangemi (Eds.) Law and the Semantic Web. Legal Ontologies, Methodologies, Legal Information Retrieval, and Applications. Number 3369 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 205–222.Google Scholar
  10. Blankenburg, E. (1991). Legal Cultures Compared. In E. Blankenburg, J. Commaille, M. Galanter (Eds.) Disputes and Litigation, Oñati Proceedings n.12, IISJL, Oññanti, 11–21.Google Scholar
  11. Blankenburg, E. (1997). Patterns of Legal Culture: The Netherlands Compared to Neighboring Germany, Duitsland Institute, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  12. Blázquez, M., R. Peña-Ortiz, J. Contreras, R. Benjamins, P. Casanovas, J.-J. Vallbé, and N. Casellas (2005, December). D10.3.1 Legal Case Study: Prototype. Sekt ist-2003-506826 Deliverable, SEKT, EU-IST Project IST-2003-506826, Intelligent Software Components S.A. (iSOCO) and Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB).Google Scholar
  13. Casanovas, P. Dimensiones del pluralismo jurídico, IX Congrés d’Sntropologia FAAEE, Barcelona, 2002, available at http://www.ub.edu/reciprocitat/GER_WEB_CAS/Actividades/Actividades%20Simposio%202002/Ponencia-Casanovas.pdf (accessed 10/5/2010)
  14. Casanovas, P., X. Binefa, C. Gracia, E. Teodoro, N. Galera, M. Blázquez, M. Poblet, J. Carrabina, M. Monton, C. Montero, J. Serrano, J.M. López-Cobo (2009a). The E-Sentencias Prototype: A Procedural Ontology for Legal Multimedia Applications in the Spanish Civil Courts. In P. Casanovas, J. Breuker, M. Klein, E. Francesconi (Eds.) Channelling the Legal Information Flood. Legal Ontologies and the Semantic Web, vol. 188. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, Amsterdam, 199–219.Google Scholar
  15. Casanovas, P., N. Casellas, J.J. Vallbé (2009b). An Ontology-Based Decision Support System for Judges. In P. Casanovas, J. Breuker, M. Klein, E. Francesconi (Eds.) Channelling the Legal Information Flood. Legal Ontologies and the Semantic Web, vol. 188. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, Amsterdam, 165–175.Google Scholar
  16. Casanovas, P., M. Poblet, N. Casellas, J. Contreras, R. Benjamins, M. Blázquez (2005). Supporting Newly-Appointed Judges: A Legal Knowledge Management Case Study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(5): 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Casanovas, P., M. Poblet, N. Casellas, J. Vallbé, F. Ramos, R. Benjamins, M. Blázquez, L. Rodrigo, J. Contreras, J. Gorroñogoitia-Cruz (2004, December (January 2005)). D10.2.1 Legal Case Study: Legal Scenario. Sekt ist-2003-506826 Deliverable, SEKT, EU-IST Project IST-2003-506826, Intelligent Software Components S.A. and Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  18. Casellas, N., J.-E. Nieto, A. Meroño, A. Roig, S. Torralba, M. Reyes de los Mozos, P. Casanovas (2010). Ontological Semantics for Data Privacy Compliance: The NEURONA Ontology, Intelligent Information Privacy Management. Papers from the AAAI Spring Symposium, Stanford 23rd–25th of March 2010, Technical Report SS-10-05, 34–38.Google Scholar
  19. Casellas, N. (2008, December). Modelling Legal Knowledge Through Ontologies. OPJK: The Ontology of Professional Judicial Knowledge. Ph.D. thesis, Departament de Ciència Política i Dret Públic, Facultat de Dret, Bellaterra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  20. Casellas, N., P. Casanovas, J.-J. Vallbé, M. Poblet, M. Blázquez, J. Contreras, J. M. López-Cobo, V. R. Benjamins (2007). Semantic Enhancement for Legal Information Retrieval: Iuriservice Performance. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ICAIL 2007, June 4–8, Stanford Law School, California, 49–57. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  21. Clancey, W.J. (1992). Representations of Knowing: In Defense of Cognitive Apprenticeship. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 3(2): 139–168.Google Scholar
  22. Contini, F., G.F. Lanzara (Eds.) (2009). ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector. European Studies in the Making of E-Government. Palgrave, Macmillan, Houndmills.Google Scholar
  23. Fabri, M., F. Contini (Eds.) (2001). Justice and Technology in Europe: How ICT is Changing the Judicial Business. Kluwer Law International, The Hague.Google Scholar
  24. Fabri, M., F. Contini (Eds.) (2003). Judicial Electronic Data Interchange in Europe: Applications, Policies, and Trends. IRSIG-CNR, Lo Scarabeo, Bologna.Google Scholar
  25. Feigenbaum, E.A. (1977). The Art of Artificial Intellegigence: I. Themes and Case Studies of Knowledge Engineering. STAN-CS-77-621 Heuristic Programming Project Memo, 77–25.Google Scholar
  26. Feigenbaum, E.A. (1992). A Personal View of Experts Systems: Looking Back and Looking Ahead, Knowledge System Laboratory, Report n. 92-41 KSL, Stanford.Google Scholar
  27. Feinerer, I. (2008). tm: Text Mining Package (R package version 0.3-3 ed.).Google Scholar
  28. Fernández-Barrera, M., G. Sartor (2010). The Legal Theory Perspective: Doctrinal Conceptual Systems vs. Computational Ontologies,  Chap 2, this volume.
  29. Forsyth, D.E., B. Buchanan (1989). Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems: Some Pitfalls and Suggestions. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 19(3): 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Friedman, L.M. (1975). The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  31. Friedman, L.M., S. MacAulay, J.A. Stookey (Eds.) (1995). Law and Society Reader: Readings on the Social Studies of Law. Norton and Co, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  32. Friedman, L.M., R. Pérez-Perdomo (Eds.) (2003). Legal Culture in the Age of Globalization. Latin America and Latin Europe. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  33. Gómez-Pérez, A., M. Fernández-López, O. Corcho (2003). Ontological Engineering. With Examples from the Areas of Knowledge Management, e-Commerce and the Semantic Web. Advanced Information and Knowlege Processing. Springer, London.Google Scholar
  34. Hage, J., B. Verheij (1999). The Law as a Dynamic Interconnected System of States of Affairs: A Legal Top Ontology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51 (6): 1043–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jacobs, S. (2002). Maintaining Neutrality in Dispute Mediation: Managing Disagreement While Managing Not To Disagree. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1403–1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jackson, S. (1998). Disputation by Design. Argumentation, 12: 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manning, C.D., H. Schütze (1999). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London, UK.Google Scholar
  38. Martin, D., M. Rouncefield, I. Sommerville (2002). Applying Patterns of Cooperative Interaction to Work (Re)Design: E-Government and Planning. In Proceedings of CHI 2002. Publications of the ACM, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  39. Martin, D., I. Sommerville (2004). Patterns of Cooperative Interaction: Linking Ethnomethodology and Design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, March 2004; 11(1): 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Milton, N. (2007). Knowledge Acquisition in Practice. A Step-by-Step Guide. Decision Engineering. Springer, London.Google Scholar
  41. Noy, N.F., D.L. McGuinness (2001). Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. Technical Report SMI-2001-0880, Stanford University School of Medicine.Google Scholar
  42. Peczenik, A. (2000). Scientia Juris. An Unsolved Philosophical Problem. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 3(3): 273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peczenick, A. (2005). Scientia Juris. Legal Doctrine as Knowledge of Law and as a Source of Law. In A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and Legal Jurisprudence, vol. 4. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin.Google Scholar
  44. Poblet, M., N. Casellas, S. Torralba, P. Casanovas (2009). Modeling Expert Knowledge in the Mediation Domain: A Mediation Core Ontology. In N. Casellas, E. Francesconi, R. Hoekstra, S. Montemagni (Eds.) Proceedings of 3rd Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT2009), Barcelona June 8, 2009, IDT Series, vol. 2, 19–28. (Available at: http://www.huygens.es/site/service4.html).
  45. Poblet, M., P. Casanovas (2005). Recruitment, Professional Evaluation and Career of Judges and Prosecutors in Spain. In G. di Federico (Ed.) Recruitment, Professional Evaluation and Career of Judges and Prosecutors in Europe: Austria, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Spain. IRSIG-CNR, Lo Scarabeo, Bologna, 185–214.Google Scholar
  46. Schreiber, G., H. Akkermans, A. Anjewierden, R. de Hoog, N. Shadbolt, W.V. de Velde, B. Wielinga (1999). Knowledge Engineering and Management. The CommonKADS Methodology. A Bradford Book. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London, England.Google Scholar
  47. Sure, Y. (2003). Methodology, Tools and Case Studies for Ontology Based Knowledge Management. Ph.D. thesis, Fakultät für Wirschaftwissenschaften der Universität Fridericiana zu Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
  48. Sure, Y., C. Tempich, D. Vrandecić (2006). Ontology Engineering Methodologies. In J. Davies et al. (Eds.) Semanic Web Technologies. Trends and Research in Ontology-based Systems, Chichester, Wiley, 171–190.Google Scholar
  49. Tamanaha, B.Z. (2001). A General Jurisprudence of Law and Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford, MA.Google Scholar
  50. Tiscornia, D. (2005). Multilingual Semantic Metadata for Law. In Quaderni CNIPA, 2005, 3rd Workshop on Legislative XML (Furore, 6–8 aprile, 2005).Google Scholar
  51. Trubek, D.M. (1990). Back to the Future: The Short, Happy Life of the Law and Society Movement. Florida State University Law Review, 18(1): 1–55.Google Scholar
  52. Trubek, D.M., Y. Dézalay, R. Buchanan, J.R. Davis (1994). Global Restructuring and the Law: Studies of the Internationalization of Legal Fields and the Creation of Transnational Arenas. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 44(2): 407–498.Google Scholar
  53. Vallbé, J.-J. (2009, July). Models of Decision-Making: Facing Uncertainty in Spanish Judicial Settings. Ph.D. thesis, Departament de Dret Constitucional i Ciència Política. Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pompeu Casanovas
    • 1
  • Núria Casellas
    • 1
  • Joan-Josep Vallbé
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political Science and Public LawUAB Institute of Law and Technology, Faculty of LawBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Political Science and Public LawInstitute of Law and Technology, Faculty of LawBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations