• Save
Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web

on

  • 1,224 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,224
Views on SlideShare
1,219
Embed Views
5

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 5

http://www.linkedin.com 4
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Calpestare: trample

Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web Presentation Transcript

  • Representing Legal Knowledge on the Semantic Web
    Rinke Hoekstra
    30-03-2009
    WAI Meeting @ VU
  • 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
  • “Lady Justice on a diet”
    30-03-2009
    WAI Meeting @ VU
  • Typical legal norm
    30-03-2009
    WAI Meeting @ VU
  • 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
  • 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
  • … sounds familiar?
    30-03-2009
    WAI Meeting @ VU
  • Layer Cake
    Identification of texts and organisations
    Representation of structure (MetaLex)
    Lightweight annotation
    • Isomorphic representation of contents
    • traceable, structural correspondence, scope
    Problems!
    30-03-2009
    WAI Meeting @ VU
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Social Reality (Hoekstra, 2009, Ch.7)
    X counts-as Y in context C
    30-03-2009
    WAI Meeting @ VU
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • LexSpecialis (3)
    30-03-2009
    WAI Meeting @ VU
  • 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
  • Lex Superior
    30-03-2009
    WAI Meeting @ VU
  • 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
  • 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
  • Simplified spatial norms
    30-03-2009
    WAI Meeting @ VU
  • FEED Portal
    30-03-2009
    WAI Meeting @ VU
  • 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
  • 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
  • The END
    • http://www.estrellaproject.org/lkif-core, http://www.metalex.eu
    • 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)
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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!