Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Calpestare: trample
  • Wai March 2009 Representing Legal Knowledge On The Semantic Web

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