Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web

793

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
793
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Calpestare: trample
  • Transcript

    • 1. Representing Legal Knowledge on the Semantic Web
      Rinke Hoekstra
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 2. Overview
      Challenge for AI & Law
      Legal Knowledge Representation
      Incremental Approach
      Legal core ontology
      Social reality
      Representing norms
      Exceptions
      Temporal aspects
      Jurisdiction
      Scope
      Discussion
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 3. “Lady Justice on a diet”
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 4. Typical legal norm
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 5. In short…
      Well (?) structured, man made
      We’re all subject to it
      There’s lots and lots of it
      … online (wetten.nl, rechtspraak.nl)
      A lot like the web
      distributed, cross-references
      But… complex knowledge management issues
      versions, semantic cross-references, exceptions, etc.
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 6. AI&Law: Two Perspectives
      Formal representation of legal theory
      Determine status of facts as `legal’ (epistemology)
      …creating legal knowledge
      Representation of the law itself
      KR/Expert system perspective
      Annotation of sources
      versioning, authority, accessibility, cross-referencing
      Reasoning over contents
      assessment, planning, harmonisation, simulation
      Tractability & completeness important
      need correct answers!
      Open world, traceable to sources
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 7. … sounds familiar?
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 8. Layer Cake
      Identification of texts and organisations
      Representation of structure (MetaLex)
      Lightweight annotation
      • Isomorphic representation of contents
      • 9. traceable, structural correspondence, scope
      Problems!
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 10. Incremental Approach
      Functional Ontology of Law (Valente, 1995)
      Epistemology of knowledge types in law
      Legal knowledge as abstraction of common sense
      Core Ontology
      Bridges the gap between ‘common sense’ reality and the legal system
      Norms
      Specify regulations that hold on reality
      Use concepts available in the core ontology
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 11. From Ontology to Norms
      Combining knowledge types
      … combining representation formalisms?
      Where to draw the line?
      Approach (… or rather, experiment)
      Ontology: in OWL 2 DL
      Norms: in OWL 2 DL, as much as possible
      Legal Reasoning: DL Reasoning?
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 12. LKIF Core Ontology (Hoekstra et al., 2009)
      http://www.estrellaproject.org/lkif-core
      Basic legal concepts
      ‘Basic level categories’ (a.o. Rosch, Lakoff)
      Shared across legal domains
      Grounding in common sense
      Roles
      Special legal inference
      Knowledge acquisition support
      Prevent loss in translation
      Semantic annotation
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 13. From physical to social world
      Intentional Stance (Dennett, 1987)
      Intentional notions are generalizations over physical phenomena
      Construction of social reality (Searle, 1995)
      Constitutive rules (counts-as)
      Subjective entities
      Institutional facts (roles, functions)
      Propositional attitudes (beliefs, intentions)
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 14. Social Reality (Hoekstra, 2009, Ch.7)
      X counts-as Y in context C
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 15. Representing Norms
      Outcome of a case does not always follow ‘logically’ from premises
      Freedom of judge to decide
      Internal inconsistencies
      Built-in conflict resolution
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 16. Representing Norms
      Norms ≠ Definitions
      Conflicting norms  inconsistent reality?
      A norm is an institutional fact that imposes a deontic qualification on aset of situations in reality.
      Three types
      permission, prohibition, obligation
      Two qualifications
      allowed, disallowed
      Situations as OWL restrictions on ‘Generic Case’
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 17. LexSpecialis (1)
      Students registered at this university are allowed to check out a book from this library.
      Art1a_GC
      ⊑ Generic_Case
      ⊑ ∃allowed_by.art1a
      ≡ Registered_Student⊓
      ∃checks_out.Library_Book
       
      Art1a_Permission
      ⊑ Permission
      ⊑ ∀allows.Art1a_GC
      ≡ {art1a}
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 18. LexSpecialis (2)
      Students who have checked out more than five books are not allowed to check out another book.
      Art1c_GC_F
      ⊑Generic_Case
      ⊑∃disallowed_by.{art1c}
      ≡ Registered_Student⊓≥ 6 checks_out.Library_Book
      Art1c_GC_P
      ⊑Generic_Case
      ⊑∃allowed_by.{art1c}
      ≡ Registered_Student⊓∃checks_out.Library_Book⊓
      ≤ 5 checks_out.Library_Book
      Art1c_Prohibition
      ⊑ Prohibition
      ⊑ ∀disallows.Art1c_GC_F ⊓ ∀allows.Art1c_GC_P
      ≡ {art1c}
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 19. LexSpecialis (3)
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 20. Limitations
      Conflicts may arise between norms that have partially overlapping generic cases
      OWL 2 DL does not allow the definition of property chains over language constructs
      disallowsordf:typeordfs:subClassOfordf:type-o allows-->lex_specialis
      Implementation:
      HARNESS (OWL Judge) Protégé 4 pluginhttp://www.estrellaproject.org
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 21. Lex Superior
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 22. Lex Posterior: Temporal Scope
      Version management of norms and definitions
      Old version still holds for past cases
      Hold independently, at the same time
      Complex determination of validity
      retroactive, immediate, delayed applicability
      Approach
      Explicitly mark dynamic concepts with a temporal restriction
      Conjunction of ‘CurrentInterval’ with a validity and applicability interval
      Individuals are timestamped
      Versions and Applicability of Concept Definitions (Klarman, Hoekstra, Bron, 2008)
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 23. Jurisdiction
      Jurisdiction as topic area (Delegation of authority)
      NL subClassOfAuthority and issues only (Norm and qualifies only NLJurisdiction)
      Jurisdiction as geospatial area
      NL subClassOfAuthority and issues only (Norm and qualifies only
      (located_inhas The_Netherlands))
      Spatial planning
      IMRO standard vocabulary for categories of land use
      Problems
      Delegation causes exception to lex superior rule
      Spatial relations between regions
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
      Explicit scope of allowed actions
      Explicit scope of normative content
    • 24. Simplified spatial norms
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 25. FEED Portal
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 26. Semantic Scope
      Definitions by restricted to (part of) regulation
      Requires partitioning of representation
      Import of definitions
      “House, as defined in Article 4”
      Deeming provisions
      “For the purposes of this chapter, a house boat is considered to be a house as defined in Article 4”
      … include scope in definition of classes
      … scope as context in counts-as rule (Searle, 1995)
      Still thinking about it …
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 27. Discussion
      True ontology based reasoning (LKIF Core)
      Cognitively intuitive (untested)
      Flexible system for describing social reality
      Circumvent inconsistencies
      Separate norm from situation
      Explicitly scope class definitions (time, location, …)
      … works!
      Limitations
      Limited expressiveness for describing situations
      Not all legal reasoning is DL reasoning
      Enormous threshold
      … what about verdicts?
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
    • 28. The END
      • http://www.estrellaproject.org/lkif-core, http://www.metalex.eu
      • 29. Rinke Hoekstra, RadboudWinkels, and Erik Hupkes. Reasoning with spatial plans on the semantic web. In Carole Hafner, editor, Proceedings of ICAIL 2009. IAAIL, ACM Press, June 2009 (to be published)
      • 30. Rinke Hoekstra, JoostBreuker, Marcello Di Bello, and Alexander Boer. LKIF core: Principled ontology development for the legal domain. In JoostBreuker et al., editors, Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2009.
      • 31. Saskia van de Ven, Rinke Hoekstra, JoostBreuker, Lars Wortel, and Abdallah El-Ali. Judging Amy: Automated legal assessment using OWL 2. In Proceedings of OWL: Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2008 EU), October 2008.
      • 32. SzymonKlarman, Rinke Hoekstra, and Marc Bron. Versions and applicability of concept definitions in legal ontologies. In Kendall Clark and Peter F. Patel-Schneider, editors, Proceedings of OWLED 2008 DC, April 2008.
      For something partially (dis)similar:
      • Rinke Hoekstra, Ontology Representation – Design Patterns and Ontologies that Make Sense, PhD Thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam/IOS Press, 2009 (to be published)
      30-03-2009
      WAI Meeting @ VU
      See you at OWLED 2009!

    ×