Abstract
The previous overview of legal ontologies and the detailed description of the conceptualization and formalization process of the Ontology of Professional Judicial Knowledge, together with the proposal of the socio-legal methodological approach raise several issues, discussed in this chapter, which include the integration of bottom-up and top-down approaches in the development of legal ontologies, or the usability-reusability trade-offs.
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.
Guidelines are given, for example, in Suárez-Figueroa et al. (2007, 2009a) and Spyns et al. (2008).
- 2.
See, for example, Ashley and Brüninghaus (2003).
- 3.
“In the DALOS KOS, the two layers are connected by relationships mapping concepts to their linguistic counterpart, i.e. terms: this mapping is implemented through the hasLexicalization relationship, which from a monolingual perspective maps a given concept to the term(s) expressing it, whereas from a cross-lingual perspective it maps a given concept to the multilingual terminological variants conveying it” (Francesconi et al. 2010b).
- 4.
OBO Foundry: http://www.obofoundry.org/
- 5.
BioPortal: http://bioportal.bioontology.org/
- 6.
“The GO project has developed three structured controlled vocabularies (ontologies) that describe gene products in terms of their associated biological processes, cellular components and molecular functions in a species-independent manner. There are three separate aspects to this effort: first, the development and maintenance of the ontologies themselves; second, the annotation of gene products, which entails making associations between the ontologies and the genes and gene products in the collaborating databases; and third, development of tools that facilitate the creation, maintenance and use of ontologies,” http://www.geneontology.org/GO.doc.shtml
- 7.
“In many ways, the medical-informatics research community should become more concerned with identifying reusable ontologies, tasks, and problem-solving methods, not only because making these abstractions explicit leads to better knowledge engineering, but also because the study of these abstractions is the essence of medical informatics. In some regards, the most reusable and sharable end points of medical-informatics research are not specific computer-based artifacts, but rather insights into the structure of biomedical knowledge and methods for applying that knowledge in the clinic or laboratory. New computational architectures that will allow us to define and examine knowledge-level abstractions are important not only for building robust decision-support systems, but also for developing and validating our theories regarding biomedical knowledge and its organization” (Musen 1992).
- 8.
See for example: Govtrack.us (http://www.govtrack.us/), or legislation.gov.uk (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/).
- 9.
See the proceedings from the DEON (Deontic Logic in Computer Science) Workshops at: http://www.defeasible.org/deon2010/, and the materials provided by the Rule Markup Initiative as an example (http://ruleml.org/).
- 10.
See, for example the COIN (Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems) Workshops (http://coin-aamas2011.iiia.csic.es/, or the CLIMA (Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems) Workshops (http://centria.di.fct.unl.pt/events/climaXII/index.html), as an example.
References
Ajani, G., G. Boella, L. Lesmo, M. Martin, A. Mazzei, D. P. Radicioni, and P. Rossi. 2010. Multilevel legal ontologies. In Semantic processing of legal texts: Where the language of law meets the law of language. ed. E. Francesconi, S. Montemagni, W. Peters, and D. Tiscornia. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 6036, 136–154. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer
Allemang, D., and J. Hendler. 2008. Semantic Web for the working ontologist. Modeling in RDF, RDFS and OWL. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.
Antoniou, G., and G. Wagner. 2003. Rules and defeasible reasoning on the Semantic Web. In Rules and rule markup languages for the Semantic Web, ed. M. Schroeder and G. Wagner. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 2876, 111–120. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39715-1_8.
Berners-Lee, T. 1998, September. Why RDF model is different from the XML model. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDF-XML.html
Berners-Lee, T., J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. 2001, May. The Semantic Web. Scientific American 284(5):34–43.
Breuker, J., and R. Hoekstra. 2004a. Core concepts of law: Taking common-sense seriously. In Proceedings of Formal Ontologies in Information Systems FOIS-2004, 210–221. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Breuker, J., and R. Hoekstra. 2004b. Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRI-Core, two core ontologies for law. In Proceedings of Workshop on Core Ontologies in Ontology Engineering in the 14th International Conference (EKAW’04), ed. A. Gangemi and S. Borgo, Whittlebury Hall, CEUR.
de Nicola, A., M. Missikoff, and R. Navigli. 2009. A software engineering approach to ontology building. Information Systems 34:258–275.
Francesconi, E., S. Montemagni, W. Peters, and D. Tiscornia, eds. 2010b. Semantic processing of legal texts: Where the language of law meets the law of language. Lecture notes in computer science. Vol. 6036. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Hart, H. 1961. The concept of law. Clarendon law series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelsen, H. 1991. General theory of norms. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lame, G. 2001. Constructing an ir-oriented legal ontology. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Legal Ontologies (LEGONT) in JURIX 2001, Amsterdam, ed. R. Winkels, 31–36.
Linehan, M. H. 2007. Ontologies and rules in business models. Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, IEEE International 0:149–156.
Milton, N. 2007. Knowledge acquisition in practice. A step-by-step guide. Decision engineering. London: Springer.
Musen, M. A. 1992. Dimensions of knowledge sharing and reuse. Computers and Biomedical Research 25:435–467.
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.
Paschke, A., M. Bichler, and J. Dietrich. 2005. Contractlog: An approach to rule based monitoring and execution of service level agreements. In Rules and rule markup languages for the semantic web, ed. A. Adi, S. Stoutenburg, and S. Tabet. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 3791, 209–217. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Peters, W. 2009. Text-based legal ontology enrichment. In 3rd Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques Joint with 2nd Workshop on Semantic Processing of Legal Text (LOAIT 2009), Co-located with the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2009), ed. N. Casellas, E. Francesconi, R. Hoekstra, and S. Montemagni. IDT series, Vol. 2, 55–65. Barcelona: IDT/Huygens Editorial.
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.
Segaran, T., C. Evans, and J. Taylor. 2009. Programming the Semantic Web. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.
Spyns, P., Y. Tang, and R. Meersman. 2008. An ontology engineering methodology for DOGMA. Applied Ontology 3(1–2):13–39.
Sure, Y. 2003. Methodology, tools and case studies for ontology based knowledge management. Ph.D. thesis, Fakultät für Wirschaftwissenschaften der Universität Fridericiana zu Karlsruhe.
Uijttenbroek, E. M., A. R. Lodder, M. C. Klein, G. R. Wildeboer, W. V. Steenbergen, R. L. Sie, P. E. Huygen, and F. van Harmelen. 2008. Retrieval of case law to provide layman with information about liability: Preliminary results of the BEST-project. In Computable models of the law, ed. P. Casanovas, G. Sartor, N. Casellas, and R. Rubino. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, Vol. 4884, 291–311. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Uszok, A., J. M. Bradshaw, M. Johnson, R. Jeffers, A. Tate, J. Dalton, and S. Aitken. 2004, July. Kaos policy management for Semantic Web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems 19:32–41.
Valente, A., and J. Breuker. 1994a. A commonsense theory of normative systems. In Proceedings of the ECAI’94 Workshop on Artificial Normative Systems, ed. J. Breuker, 56–69. ECCAI.
Venturi, G. 2010. Legal language and legal knowledge management applications. In Semantic processing of legal texts: Where the language of law meets the law of language, ed. E. Francesconi, S. Montemagni, W. Peters, and D. Tiscornia. Lecture notes in computer science. Vol. 6036, 3–26. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Visser, P. R. S., and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. 1998b. A comparison of four ontologies for the design of legal knowledge systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6:27–57.
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). Some Final Remarks and Issues for Discussion. In: Legal Ontology Engineering. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1497-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1497-7_6
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)