Abstract
This chapter is devoted to the description of the development process of an ontology that represents professional judicial knowledge, including a detailed description of the knowledge acquisition step, conceptualization and formalization steps, and the different ontology evaluation techniques explored. A socio-legal approach to the development of legal ontologies is proposed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Detailed information regarding this survey can be found at Ayuso et al. (2003) and Álvarez et al. (2005). Also Casanovas et al. (2004) includes some references to the data.
- 2.
Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona (UAB), Universitat de Barcelona (UB), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Universidad de León, and Universidad de Burgos.
- 3.
The lexical analysis offered “guardia” as the lexical form most characteristic for that open-ended question (Ayuso et al. 2003) in the group of young judges during their first appointment.
- 4.
Currently, access to the judicial profession in Spain is exam-based. As an example, the 2008 first exam included 100 test questions from a set temario consisting of Constitutional Law (31 temas), Civil Law (98 temas), Criminal Law (62 temas), Civil Procedure Law (62 temas), Criminal Procedure Law (37 temas), Commercial Law (33 temas) and Administrative and Labour Law (37 temas). This information may be consulted at http://www.poderjudicial.es
- 5.
Once the written and oral examinations have been passed, the judges start the period of training at the Spanish Judicial School: 9 months of theoretical training at the School and 5–6 months of practical training under the supervision of a juez tutor. The main teaching at the Spanish Judicial School, according to their program, is directed to the discussion of cases relevant for Juzgados de Primera Instancia e Instrucción (first appointment courts) regarding: Constitutional Law, European Union Law, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Procedural Law. Some insight on Accounting, Forensic Medicine and Organic Law – the legal framework of the judicial profession –. More practical subjects, such as Judgment drafting, Relation with the press, Gender discrimination, Informatics, Legal English and French, Learning an official language of Spain (Catalan, Galician or Basque), Justice and Society, Mediation and The Judge on its first appointment are paid a secondary attention and are, sometimes, voluntary. Second year training takes place not only in judicial courts but also in other relevant administrations: Registro Civil, Registro Mercantil, Registro de la Propiedad, Inspección de Trabajo, etc. For more information see Consejo del Poder Judicial (2007).
- 6.
The judges in their first appointment which declared not to comment their cases were the 9.4% of the total. 6.1% of the set interviewed gave no answer to that question (Ayuso et al. 2003).
- 7.
The most up-to-date analysis of the data is contained in Vallbé (2009), although more information regarding the data and the results may be found in Casanovas et al. (2004, 2005b).
- 8.
SEKT project (IST-IP 2003-506826), Dr. John Davies from British Telecom was the Project Coordinator, Dr. Rudi Studer from the University of Karlsruhe was the Technical Coordinator, and Paul Warren, also from British Telecom, was the Project Manager. Partners: British Telecommunications Plc. (UK), Empolis GmbH (Germany), Jozef Stefan Institute (Ljubljana, Slovenia), University of Karlsruhe (Institute AIFB, Germany), University of Sheffield (NLP Group, UK), University of Innsbruck (Austria), Intelligent Software Components S. A. (iSOCO, Spain), Kea-pro GmbH (Switzerland), Ontoprise GmbH ( Intelligente Lösungen für das Wissensmanagement, Germany), Sirma AI Ltd (Bulgaria), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Netherlands), and Autonomous University of Barcelona (IDT, Spain). For more information visit http://www.sekt-project.com. The SEKT vision was to develop and exploit the knowledge technologies underlying Next Generation Knowledge Management, integrating fundamental research, development of components and input from real world case studies in the public and private sectors: Siemens case study (Improving Individual Productivity), British Telecom case study (Reducing Overheads of Knowledge Creation and Maintenance), and the Legal case study (Decision Support for Legal Professionals).
- 9.
Visit, GATE (General Architecture for Text Engineering) at http://gate.ac.uk
- 10.
Delays up to 5 min were considered acceptable if the delay increased precision and recall.
- 11.
For more detailed information regarding the architecture of the system see Blázquez et al. (2005) and Casanovas et al. (2005a, 2006).
- 12.
Also sources in different languages are taken into account: Enciclopèdia Catalana and Gran Diccionari de la Llengua Catalana (http://www.enciclopedia.cat), Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus (http://www.collinslanguage.com), Cambridge Dictionaries Online (http://dictionary.cambridge.org).
- 13.
SUMO is an effort from the Standard Upper Ontology Working Group at IEEE, a non-profit professional association for the advancement of technology: Visit http://suo.ieee.org for more information regarding the development of SUMO. This upper ontology “is a collection of approximately 1,000 well-defined and well-documented concepts, interconnected into semantic network and accompanied by a number of axioms” (Sevcenko 2003). See also Niles and Pease (2001).
- 14.
PROTo ONtology, (PROTON, in OWL Lite) was developed during the SEKT European Project (SIRMA AI, Ltd.) as a general-purpose domain-independent ontology. A light-weight upper-level ontology to serve as modelling basis (Terziev et al. 2005).
- 15.
See Oberle et al. (2007) for a discussion regarding upper ontology commitments regarding a descriptive vs. revisionary approach, multiplicative vs. reductionist ontology, possibilism vs. actualism, and endurantism vs. perdurantism.
- 16.
See Breuker and Hoekstra (2004a) and Breuker et al. (2005).
- 17.
The lemmatization of the corpus of questions improved the results obtained, see Vallbé et al. (2007). More details on these analysis with TextToOnto and Text2Onto may be found in Casellas (2008). Stopwords could also be removed.
- 18.
AntConc supports the loading of files containing stop words to clean the input document.
- 19.
For a discussion of the theoretical relations between these terms see Montero-Aroca et al. (2005a).
- 20.
These definitions are inspired by the use of the terms in the corpus of questions (supported by relevant literature) and are based on the definitions offered by several reputed dictionaries (e.g. Collins, Oxford, Moliner (2000), Alcaraz-Varó and Hughes (2006)), and from definitions contained in the given top ontologies, and Spanish legislation, when appropriate.
- 21.
Two versions of the ontology, regarding only expressivity but also complex conceptual decisions, will be available. At first, a class hierarchy will be established (classes, subclass relations —rdfs:subClassOf—, and instances), enriched with further owl:ObjectProperty (owl:subPropertyOf and owl:inverseOf) constructs to establish relations between the classes. Later, owl:equivalentClass, owl:sameAs constructs, and multiple class subclasses or multiple class instances will be discussed in order to formalize, for example, the conceptualization of instances that may be declared as members of more than one class or classes which share instances. The inclusion of these constructs will take into account the purpose of the IURISERVICE search system, the input received from the validation and the suggestions by the legal experts, and their formalization will modify the simplicity of the initial class hierarchy modeled.
- 22.
Versions 3.3.1, 3.4 (beta) and 4.0 (beta) are used. GraphViz (OWLViz) was used to provide graphical representations of the formalized ontology.
- 23.
Ley Orgánica 1/1979, de 26 de septiembre, General Penitenciaria, Ley 30/1992, de 26 de noviembre de Régimen Jurídico de las Administraciones Públicas y del Procedimiento Administrativo Común, Constitución Española, and Ley Orgánica 6/1985, de 1 de julio, del Poder Judicial.
- 24.
“Court in which more than one judge sits” (Alcaraz-Varó and Hughes 2006).
- 25.
Art. 26, Código Penal: “A los efectos de este Código se considera documento todo soporte material que exprese o incorpore datos, hechos o narraciones con eficacia probatoria o cualquier otro tipo de relevancia jurídica.”
- 26.
Public and private documents are conceptualized and defined differently, although compatible, in the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Act. The Civil Procedure Act takes into account the documents from the point of view of presenting evidence. In that view, judicial decisions are included within public documents. Here, we will consider that judicial decisions are not considered by the junior judges as public documents used in the evidence process, but as documents/decisions which they themselves produce in a judicial process. Therefore, the conceptualizations suggested by both the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Act have been taken into account, although modified for the content of the corpus.
- 27.
Auto may also be translated as: order, court order, writ, decree and warrant within the judicial domain (Alcaraz-Varó and Hughes 2006). Nevertheless, providencia may be translated also by the terms order, court order and writ.
- 28.
Using a TransitiveProperty “one defines a property P to be a transitive property, this means that if a pair (x, y) is an instance of P, and the pair (y, z) is also instance of P, then we can infer the pair (x, z) is also an instance of P” (Dean et al. 2004). A FunctionalProperty “is a property that can have only one (unique) value y for each instance x, i.e. there cannot be two distinct values y1 and y2 such that the pairs (x, y1) and (x, y2) are both instances of this property” (Dean et al. 2004).
- 29.
The main formalization difficulty was to offer solutions for the conceptualization of instances which may belong to more than one class at the same time or classes which share their instances because instances in OPJK are, in fact, linguistic units. The instance is the term itself, e.g., the term auto_de_alejamiento is the instance itself, not the particular auto issued by a specific judge for a concrete situation. As linguistic units, their meaning will be further defined by the class and the context of use (semantic distance calculations) of the term both in the questions asked at the IURISERVICE system and the questions stored within the system. The interest is thus placed in the search capabilities and enhancement possibilities offered by ontological engineering, nevertheless, if OPJK was to be used for further reasoning purposes, current OPJK instances might be formalized as classes, to allow further instantiation. Moreover, Smith et al. (2004) acknowledges the fact that in building ontologies, the distinction between a class and an instance or individual may be blurred because of the different levels of representation. “In certain contexts something that is obviously a class can itself be considered an instance of something else. For example, in the wine ontology we have the notion of a Grape, which is intended to denote the set of all grape varietals. CabernetSauvingonGrape is an example instance of this class, as it denotes the actual grape varietal called Cabernet Sauvignon. However, CabernetSauvignonGrape could itself be considered a class, the set of all actual Cabernet Sauvignon grapes.”
- 30.
As Rector et al. (2004) advocated “a policy in which primitives form a skeleton of pure trees” we will avoid the creation of tangled hierarchies based on the description of multiple owl:subclass classes. Furthermore, multiple class instantiation, the declaration of instances as members of more than one class could offer an initial modelling solution for most situations were an instance may be considered as being a member of two classes.
- 31.
“The built-in OWL property owl:sameAs links an individual to an individual. Such an owl:sameAs statement indicates that two URI references actually refer to the same thing: the individuals have the same ’identity’ (Dean et al. 2004).”
- 32.
“A class axiom may contain (multiple) owl:equivalentClass statements. owl:equivalentClass is a built-in property that links a class description to another class description. The meaning of such a class axiom is that the two class descriptions involved have the same class extension (i.e., both class extensions contain exactly the same set of individuals)” (Dean et al. 2004).
- 33.
The formalization of OPJK v.2.0 has required the use of version 4.0 (beta) of the Protégé editor.
- 34.
OPJK versions 1.0 and 2.0 have a DL expressivity of \(\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}\mathcal{H}\mathcal{I}\mathcal{F}+\) and \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{H}\mathcal{O}\mathcal{I}\mathcal{F}\), respectively. \(\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}\), the Description Logic base language, “is the smallest DL language that can be detected by Pellet” (d’Aquin et al. 2007). \(\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}\mathcal{H}\mathcal{I}\mathcal{F}+\) includes class hierarchies, property hierarchies, inverse properties, and functional and transitive properties. \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{H}\mathcal{O}\mathcal{I}\mathcal{F}\) includes also the formalization of disjoint axioms, owl:sameAs instances, together with owl:equivalentClass and multiple class instantiation (although they do not add DL complexity themselves). While OWL Lite is based on inverse and functional properties and property hierarchies, transitive properties, nominals and qualified cardinality restrictions express OWL DL (Baader 2003). Therefore OPJK 1.0 is formalized in OWL Lite and OPJK 2.0 in OWL DL.
- 35.
Nevertheless, the formalization of this datatype property would bring about, for example, a legal theoretical discussion regarding the adequate conceptualization of legal concept competency. Taking Rector et al. (2004) into account, this formalization could perhaps be solved creating a Value_Type class, with a sublcass CompetencyVT, which, in turn, had Competent and Incompetent as subclasses. This formalization would, in practice, probably provide a sufficient formalization, but would not include the discussion about the nature of this legal concept.
- 36.
“The mereology module defines mereological concepts such as parts and wholes, and typical mereological relations such as part of, component of, containment, membership, etc.” (Breuker et al. 2007).
- 37.
See, for example, http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/part.html, retrieved August 18, 2010.
- 38.
References regarding ontology matching, aligning and mapping may be found in Kalfoglou and Schorlemmer (2005), de Bruijn et al. (2004) and Euzenat et al. (2004). Also, P. Shvaiko and J. Euzenat: Ontology Matching. http://www.ontologymatching.org, retrieved August 18, 2010), may be consulted for further reference.
- 39.
Some authors refer to this step as ontology evaluation, although the main purpose of this assessment is ontology reuse rather than the conceptual and quality improvement of a particular ontology (Gómez-Pérez et al. 2003; Hartmann et al. 2005; Brank et al. 2005). ONTOMETRIC, for example, is a tool that “allows the users to measure the suitability of the existent ontologies, regarding the requirements of their systems” (Lozano-Tello et al. 2003). See also Gangemi et al. (2006).
- 40.
Visit the 5th International EON Workshop at http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/ws/eon2007, retrieved August 18, 2010, and the 6th OntoContent workshop at http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/ontocontent2010, retrieved August 18, 2010.
- 41.
Other methods for ontology evaluation may also be found in Hartmann et al. (2005) and Brank et al. (2005).
- 42.
Pellet supports reasoning with OWL-DL (\(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{H}\mathcal{O}\mathcal{I}\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{D})\) and \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{R}\mathcal{O}\mathcal{I}\mathcal{Q}(\mathcal{D})\)), and also performs concept satisfiability, classification and realisation. Pellet may be downloaded from: http://pellet.owldl.com
- 43.
Nevertheless, Pellet version 1.5.2 used in Protégé version 3.3.1 ignores the assertion owl:sameAs as the use of this construct for individuals is acknowledged not to be supported by the reasoner. Pellet built-in version used by Protégé version 4.0 (beta) supports reasoning with owl:sameAs constructs.
- 44.
“The participants in the debriefing should include the evaluators, any observer used during the evaluation sessions, and representatives of the design team. The debriefing session would be conducted primarily in a brainstorming mode and would focus on discussions of possible redesigns to address the major usability problems and general problematic aspects of the design. A debriefing is also a good opportunity for discussing the positive aspects of the design, since heuristic evaluation does not otherwise address this important issue” (Nielsen 2005).
- 45.
There was no wide disagreement between the experts regarding a specific class, although the Agent class obtained a “high agree” from 8 out of 9 experts.
- 46.
B questions referred to the definitions of the main classes and C to definitions of some relevant subclasses.
- 47.
The experts considered that the sameAs construct confused form with content, in this particular case.
- 48.
The method has been widely used and evaluated and tailored for other purposes, e.g., the evaluation of websites (see Tullis and Stetson (2004)).
- 49.
For more data see also M. d’Aquin, The use of DL expressivity in Semantic Web Documents, http://watson.kmi.open.ac.uk/blog/2007/10/19/1192796480480.html, retrieved August 18, 2010. For other approaches, see also (Wang et al. 2006; Ding and Finin 2006).
- 50.
d’Aquin et al. (2007) describes that “a class is considered to possess a property if it is declared as the domain of this property”. Therefore we will consider that all property related axioms are properties (b) and only those counting as ObjectPropery domain axioms (as counted by Protégé 4.0) are considered to be domain relations (d).
- 51.
“Formally, the importance (Imp) of a class Ci is defined as the number of instances that belong to the subtree rooted at Ci in the KB (Ci(I)) compared to the total of instances in the KB (I)” (Tartir et al. 2005).
- 52.
Therefore, Precautionary_Proceeding and Enforcement_Proceeding could be either conceptualized as a Judicial_Process or as a Procedural_Stage at the same time, depending on the perspective taken. Both options are grounded on relevant literature in the area, however, and taking into account the previous modifications suffered by Legal_Act and Procedural_Role, modifying also the Precautionary_Proceeding, and Enforcement_Proceeding classes would now result in a more coherent taxonomical approach. In the new formalization provided, Judicial_Process has three subclasses: Declarative_Process, Precautionary_Proceeding, and Enforcement_Proceeding. This distinction adds granularity to the OPJK ontology, without leaving aside the main distinction between civil and criminal processes (Civil_Process and Criminal_Process are formalized as subclasses of Declarative_Process).
- 53.
Therefore Procedural_Act could have a set of subclasses based on the roles performing the acts: Jurisdictional_Act, Party_Act, etc. Or a set of subclasses based on the corresponding Microprocess: Communication_Act, Investigation_Act, Allegation_Act, Enforcement_Act, Precautionary_Act, etc. Both classifications may be integrated, although it is complex to establish sharp distinctions between them, and it would require further multiple class instantiation or the formalization of more equivalentTo. The final implemented modification of the Role class of the OPJK ontology takes into account the subclassification of acts regarding their subject (their role).
- 54.
“Artículo 35 Código Civil. Son personas jurídicas: (1) Las corporaciones, asociaciones y fundaciones de interés público reconocidas por la Ley. Su personalidad empieza desde el instante mismo en que, con arreglo a derecho, hubiesen quedado válidamente constituidas. (2) Las asociaciones de interés particular, sean civiles, mercantiles o industriales, a las que la ley conceda personalidad propia, independiente de la de cada uno de los asociados.”
- 55.
OPJK versions 1.1 and 2.1 have still a DL expressivity of \(\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}\mathcal{H}\mathcal{I}\mathcal{F}+\) and \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{H}\mathcal{O}\mathcal{I}\mathcal{F}\), respectively,as detected by Pellet in Protégé 4.0.
- 56.
This calculation is performed on OPJK version 1.1 (1.0 refined), which does not contain multiple class instantiations.
- 57.
Ley 50/1981, de 30 de diciembre, por la que se regula el Estatuto Orgánico del Ministerio Fiscal, art. 2: “El Ministerio Fiscal es un órgano de relevancia constitucional con personalidad jurídica propia, integrado con autonomía funcional en el Poder Judicial, y ejerce su misión por medio de órganos propios, conforme a los principios de unidad de actuación y dependencia jerárquica y con sujeción, en todo caso, a los de legalidad e imparcialidad.”
References
Arnaiz, A., R. López, and M. Loredo. 2005. Organización judicial. Vol. 1, Colección de esquemas de derecho procesal. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanc.
Baader, F. 2003. Description logic terminology, Chapter Appendix 1, 485–495. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benjamins, V. R., P. Casanovas, J. Breuker, and A. Gangemi, eds. 2005b. Law and the Semantic Web. Legal ontologies, methodologies, legal information retrieval, and applications [outcome of the Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Web-Based Legal Information Management, June 28, 2003, Edinburgh, UK & International Seminar on Law and the Semantic Web, November 20–21, 2003, Barcelona, Spain]. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 3369, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Brank, J., M. Grobelnik, and D. Mladenic. 2005. D.1.6.1 ontology evaluation. SEKT IST-2003-506826 Deliverable 1.6.1, SEKT, EU-IST Project Jozef Stefan Institute.
Breuker, J., R. Hoekstra, A. Boer, K. van den Berg, R. Rubino, G. Sartor, M. Palmirani, A. Wyner, and T. Bench-Capon. 2007. OWL ontology of basic legal concepts (LKIF-core). Deliverable 1.4 D.1.4, ESTRELLA project (IST-2004-027655).
Bromme, R., and H. Tillema. 1995. Fusing experience and theory: The structure of professional knowledge. Learning and Instruction 5:261–267.
Brooke, J. 1996. Sus: A ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In Usability evaluation in industry, ed. P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, I. L. McClelland, and B. Weerdmeester. Chapter 21, 189–194. London: Taylor & Francis.
Bylander, T., and B. Chandrasekaran. 1987. Generic tasks for knowledge-based reasoning: The “right” level of abstraction for knowledge acquisition. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 26(2):231–243.
Casanovas, P., N. Casellas, C. Tempich, D. Vrandečić, and R. Benjamins. 2007a, June. OPJK and DILIGENT: Ontology modeling in a distributed environment. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15(2):171–186. Presented at the ICAIL 2005 LOAIT Workshop.
Casanovas, P., M. Poblet, N. Casellas, J. Contreras, R. Benjamins, and M. Blázquez. 2005b. Supporting newly-appointed judges: A legal knowledge management case study. Journal of Knowledge Management 9(5):7–27.
Dean, M., G. Schreiber, S. Bechhofer, F. van Harmelen, J. Hendler, I. Horrocks, D. L. McGuinness, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and L. A. Stein. 2004, February. OWL web ontology language reference. W3c recommendation 10 February 2004, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
Ding, L., and T. Finin. 2006. Characterizing the Semantic Web on the web. In The Semantic Web – ISWC 2006, 5th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2006, Athens, GA, USA, November 5–9, 2006, Proceedings, ed. I.F. Cruz, S. Decker, D. Allemang, C. Preist, D. Schwabe, P. Mika, M. Uschold and L. Aroyo. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 4273, 242–257. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Euzenat, J., T. L. Bach, J. Barrasa, and et al. 2004. State of the art on ontology alignment. Deliverable KWEB/2004/D2.2.3/v1.2, Knowledge Web.
Guarino, N., and C. Welty. 2002. Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean. Communications of the ACM 45(2):61–65.
Hartmann, J., P. Spyns, A. Gibboin, D. Maynard, R. Cuel, M. C. Suárez-Figueroa, and Y. Sure. 2005, January. D.1.2.3. methods for ontology evaluation. Deliverable IST-2004-507482 KWEB D.1.2.3., EU-IST Network of Excellence (NoE) Knowledge Web Consortium.
Hoekstra, R., J. Breuker, M. D. Bello, and A. Boer. 2007. The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT 2007) at the International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL’07), Stanford, June 4, ed. P. Casanovas, M. A. Biasiotti, E. Francesconi, and M. T. Sagri, 43–63.
Milton, N. 2007. Knowledge acquisition in practice. A step-by-step guide. Decision engineering. London: Springer.
Moliner, M. 2000. Diccionario de Uso del Español. Gredos.
Montero-Aroca, J., J. Gómez-Colomer, A. Montón-Redondo, and S. Barona-Vilar. 2005a. Derecho jurisdiccional I. Parte general. 14th ed. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch.
Montero-Aroca, J., J. Gómez-Colomer, A. Montón-Redondo, and S. Barona-Vilar. 2007. Derecho jurisdiccional III. Proceso penal. 15th ed. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch.
Montero-Aroca, J., J. Gómez-Colomer, A. Montón-Redondo, and S. Barona-Vilar. 2008. Derecho jurisdiccional I. Parte general. 16th ed. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch.
Moreno-Catena, V., and V. Cortés-Domínguez. 2008. Derecho procesal penal. 3 a ed. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
Nielsen, J. 1994a. Usability engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Nielsen, J. 2005. How to conduct a heuristic evaluation. Web. (Available at 01-10-2008).
Noy, N. F., and D. L. McGuinness. 2001. Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Technical Report SMI-2001-0880, Stanford University School of Medicine.
Pinto, H. S., C. Tempich, and S. Staab. 2004. DILIGENT: Towards a fine-grained methodology for distributed, loosely-controlled and evolving engineering of ontologies. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), August 22–27 Valencia, ed. R. L. de Mantaras and L. Saitta, 393–397. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Rector, A., N. Drummond, M. Horridge, J. Rogers, H. Knublauch, R. Stevens, H. Wang, and C. Wroe. 2004. OWL pizzas: Practical experience of teaching OWL-DL: Common errors & common patterns. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management EKAW’04, 5–8 October, Whittlebury Hall, Northamptonshire.
Schreiber, G., H. Akkermans, A. Anjewierden, R. de Hoog, N. Shadbolt, W. V. de Velde, and B. Wielinga. 1999. Knowledge engineering and management. The commonKADS methodology. Cambridge: A Bradford Book. MIT Press.
Sclano, F., and P. Velardi. 2007. Termextractor: A web application to learn the common terminology of interest groups and research communities. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Terminology and Artificial Intelligence (TIA’07), Sophia Antinopolis, October.
Sevcenko, M. 2003. Online presentation of an upper ontology. In Proceedings of Znalosti 2003, Ostrava, February 19–21.
Smith, M. K., C. Welty, and D. L. McGuinness. 2004, February. OWL ontology web language guide. Recomendation, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
Sowa, J. F. 1995. Top-level ontological categories. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies43(5–6):669–685.
Sure, Y. 2003. Methodology, tools and case studies for ontology based knowledge management. Ph.D. thesis, Fakultät für Wirschaftwissenschaften der Universität Fridericiana zu Karlsruhe.
Tartir, S., I. B. Arpinar, M. Moore, A. P. Sheth, and B. Aleman-Meza. 2005. OntoQA: Metric-based ontology quality analysis. In Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition from Distributed, Autonomous, Semantically Heterogeneous Data and Knowledge Sources, Houston, November 27.
Tempich, C., H. S. Pinto, Y. Sure, D. Vrandečić, N. Casellas, and P. Casanovas. 2007. Ontology engineering with DILIGENT. A legal case study. In Trends in legal knowledge: The Semantic Web and the rebulaiton of electronic social systems. Papers form the B-4 Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Law, May 25th–27th of the XXII World Congress of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy IVR’05, Granadam, ed. P. Casanovas, P. Noriega, D. Bourcière, and F. Galindo, 269–277. Florence: European Press Academic Publishing.
Terziev, I., A. Kiryakov, and D. Manov. 2005. D1.8.1 base upper-level ontology (bulo) guidance. SEKT IST-2003-506826 Deliverable 1.8.1, SEKT, EU-IST Project IST-2003-506826, Ontotext Lab, Sirma Group (Bulgaria).
Velardi, P., R. Navigli, A. Cucchiarelli, and F. Neri. 2005, July. Evaluation of OntoLearn, a methodology for automatic population of domain ontologies. In Ontology learning from text: Methods, evaluation and applications, ed. P. Buitelaar, P. Cimiano, and B. Magnini. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications series, Vol. 123. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Wang, T., B. Parsia, and J. Hendler. 2006. A survey of the web ontology landscape. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’06), Athens, November 5, 158–171.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Casellas, N. (2011). Modelling Judicial Professional Knowledge: A Case Study. In: Legal Ontology Engineering. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1497-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1497-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1496-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1497-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)