Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Artificial Intelligence and Law
Erschienen in: Artificial Intelligence and Law 4/2008

01.12.2008

An ontology in OWL for legal case-based reasoning

verfasst von: Adam Wyner

Erschienen in: Artificial Intelligence and Law | Ausgabe 4/2008

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The paper gives ontologies in the Web Ontology Language (OWL) for Legal Case-based Reasoning (LCBR) systems, giving explicit, formal, and general specifications of a conceptualisation LCBR. Ontologies for different systems allows comparison and contrast between them. OWL ontologies are standardised, machine-readable formats that support automated processing with Semantic Web applications. Intermediate concepts, concepts between base-level concepts and higher level concepts, are central in LCBR. The main issues and their relevance to ontological reasoning and to LCBR are discussed. Two LCBR systems (AS-CATO, which is based on CATO, and IBP) are analysed in terms of basic and intermediate concepts. Central components of the OWL ontologies for these systems are presented, pointing out differences and similarities. The main novelty of the paper is the ontological analysis and representation in OWL of LCBR systems. The paper also emphasises the important issues concerning the representation and reasoning of intermediate concepts.
Vorheriger Artikel Formalising ordinary legal disputes: a case study
Nächster Artikel An object model for use in oral and written advocacy

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
There are several OWL reasoners. Pellet is open source, supports a wide range of features, is robust, scalable, and recommended by Jena, which is a Java framework for building Semantic Web applications. http://​pellet.​owldl.​com.
 
2
As we shall discuss, the Factor Hierarchy is not an IS-A hierarchy as is usually found in ontologies.
 
3
We found variant labels and relationships in a range of sources (Aleven 1997; Chorley and Bench-Capon 2005a, b; Aleven and Ashley 1993, 1995; Brüninghaus and Ashley 2003a, b; Ashley and Brüninghaus 2003), indicating the need to align the ontologies. We have taken Aleven (1997) as the basis and aligned subsequent factors to it; however, we leave for future research a “definitive” ontology of factors.
 
4
Aleven (1997, pp. 240–241) is ambiguous about the sides of Intermediate Legal Concepts and Legal Issues, indicating both a side and how to argue for either side. We present our interpretation.
 
5
Brüninghaus and Ashley (2003a, b) and Ashley and Brüninghaus (2003) relabel the factors of Aleven (1997). We follow Aleven (1997), correlating the factors of Brüninghaus and Ashley (2003a), giving the factor number of Aleven (1997): Information-Unique = F104 Info-Valuable (or F15 Unique-Product?); Maintain-Secrecy = F102 Efforts-To-Maintain-Secrecy; Improper-Means = F110 Improper-Means-Conclusion.
 
6
There is some unclarity about whether Level 1–3 factors are presumed to be decided for one side in the absence of support otherwise. For example, if Info-Valuable is not challenged or raised in the case, then it might be taken to be decided by default for P; there would be no court case were this not so. Similarly, Improper-Means-Conclusion would, if not raised, appear to be presumed to be decided for D; if it is raised, P bears a burden of proof to show that improper means were used. Another option is to assume no defaults, but that the sides must be decided for every higher-level factor. We assume defaults all for P, leaving other issues for future examination.
 
7
Contact the author for the relevant files.
 
Literatur
Aleven V (1997) Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh
Aleven V, Ashley KD (1993) What law students need to know to win. In: ICAIL ’93: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 152–161. doi:10.​1145/​158976.​158995
Aleven V, Ashley KD (1995) Doing things with factors. In: ICAIL ’95: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 31–41. doi:10.​1145/​222092.​222106
Antoniou G, van Harmelen F (2004) A semantic web primer. The MIT Press
Antoniou G, Assmann U, Baroglio C, Decker S, Henze N, Patranjan PL, Tolksdorf R (eds) (2007) Reasoning web, Third international summer school 2007, Dresden, Germany, September 3–7, 2007, Tutorial lectures, lecture notes in computer science, vol 4636. Springer
Ashley K (1990) Modeling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. Bradford Books/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Bench-Capon TJ (1991) Knowledge based systems applied to law: a framework for discussion. In: Bench-Capon TJ (ed) Knowledge based systems and legal applications, Academic Press, pp 329–342
Bench-Capon T (1997) Arguing with cases. In: Oskamp A, et al (eds) JURIX 1997, Gerard Noodt Instituut, Nijmegen, pp 85–100
Bench-Capon TJ, Visser PR (1996) Deep models, ontologies and legal knowledge based systems. In: Legal knowledge based systems. JURIX 1996: The nineth annual conference, Tilburg University Press, pp 3–14
Breuker J et al (2002) Ontologies for legal information serving and knowledge management. In: Horty J, Daskalopulu A, Winkels R (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: proceedings of Jurix 2002, IOS Press, pp 73–82
Brüninghaus S, Ashley KD (2003a) Combining model-based and case-based reasoning for predicting the outcomes of legal cases. In: Bridge D, Ashley KD (eds) Case-based reasoning research and development: proceedings of the fifth international conference on case-based reasoning (ICCBR-03), Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, Trondheim, Norway, Lecture notes in artificial intelligence LNAI 2689, pp 65–79
Chorley A, Bench-Capon T (2005a) An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13(3–4):323–371
Chorley A, Bench-Capon TJM (2005b) Agatha: Using heuristic search to automate the construction of case law theories. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13(1):9–51CrossRef
Cohen H, Lefebvre C (eds) (2005) Handbook of categorization in cognitive science. Elsevier Science
Corcho Ó, Fernández-López M, Gómez-Pérez A, López-Cima A (2003) Building legal ontologies with methontology and webode. In: Benjamins VR, Casanovas P, Breuker J, Gangemi A (eds) Law and the semantic web, vol 3369, pp 142–157
Henderson J, Bench-Capon T (2001) Dynamic arguments in a case law domain. In: ICAIL ’01: proceedings of the 8th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 60–69. doi:10.​1145/​383535.​383542
Hoekstra R, Breuker J, Bello MD, Boer A (2007) The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts. In: Legal ontologies and artificial intelligence techniques, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
Jalote P (2005) An integrated approach to software engineering. Springer
Kralingen RWV, Visser PRS, Bench-Capon TJM, Herik HJVD (1999) A principled approach to developing legal knowledge systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 51:1127–1154CrossRef
Pollock JL (1987) Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11:481–518CrossRef
Rissland EL, Skalak DB, Friedman MT (1996) BankXX: supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(1):1–71CrossRef
Rissland EL, Ashley KD, Branting LK (2006) Case-based reasoning and law. The Knowledge Engineering Review 20:293–298CrossRef
Roth B, Verheij B (2004) Cases and dialectical arguments. An approach to case-based reasoning. In: Meersman R, Tari Z, Corsaro A (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems 2004: OTM 2004 workshops. WORM’04: the second international workshop on regulatory ontologies. Springer, Heidelberg, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3292, pp 634–651
Sattler U (2007) Reasoning in description logics: basics, extensions, and relatives. In: Antoniou G, Assman U, Baroglio C, Decker S (eds) Reasoning web, LNCS 4636, Springer, pp 154–182
Uschold M, Gruninger M (1996) Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review 11(2):93–155CrossRef
Wittgenstein L (1953) Philosophical investigations. Blackwell, Oxford
Wyner A, Bench-Capon T (2007) Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In: Lodder AR, Mommers L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2007, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 139–149
Zeng Y, Wang R, Zeleznikow J, Kemp EA (2005) Knowledge representation for the intelligent legal case retrieval. In: Khosla R, Howlett RJ, Jain LC (eds) KES (1). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3681, Springer, pp 339–345
Metadaten
Titel
An ontology in OWL for legal case-based reasoning
verfasst von
Adam Wyner
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2008
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Artificial Intelligence and Law / Ausgabe 4/2008
Print ISSN: 0924-8463
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8382
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-008-9070-8