BestPortal: Lessons Learned in Lightweight Semantic Access to Court Proceedings


Published on

Published in: 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

BestPortal: Lessons Learned in Lightweight Semantic Access to Court Proceedings

  1. 1. BestPortal: Lessons Learned in Lightweight Semantic Access to Court Proceedings<br />Rinke HoekstraAI Department, Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamLeibniz Center for Law, Universiteit van Amsterdam<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  2. 2. BestPortal<br />Netherlands Council of the Judiciary <br />50 thousand verdicts<br />Alleviate burden of the judiciary<br />Improve access to court proceedings<br />BEST Project<br />“BATNA Establishment using Semantic Web Technology”<br />Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement<br /><br />Focus: unlawful act (Tort)<br />… typical Open Government scenario, no?<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  3. 3. “It’s the data, stupid!”(Tim O’Reilly)<br />Government 2.0<br />Paradigm shift<br />Public Services<br />Open Data<br />Wide range of information types<br />Business registries, crime statistics, school ratings, etc.<br />Pro-active information disclosure<br />(user) interface <br />browsing, search, RESTful interfaces (endpoints)<br />open formats<br />unique ids (URIs)<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  4. 4. … some examples<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />W3C eGov Interest Group,<br />Microsoft Open Government Data Initiative<br />…<br />But… is `just the data’ good enough?<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  5. 5. Open Up!<br />Make court proceedings publicly available<br />(<br />But: Full text search is not enough<br />Laymen<br />Lawyers<br />Lawyers have their own language: <br />legalese<br />Bridge the gap between common sense and legal knowledge<br />JURIX 2009<br />“A woman was kicked by a horse at a riding school.”<br />
  6. 6. Adding Semantics<br />Semantic annotation<br />Direct publication as RDF<br />Embedded RDFa<br />Connect to other datasources<br />Examples:<br />CEN MetaLex, <br /> <br /> ( in RDF)<br />But…these still do not bridge the gap<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  7. 7. E-Government Services<br />Lightweight<br />Pre-structured, shallow, narrow domain, no user input<br />Example:<br />Legal Services Counter (van Engers et al.,2004)<br />Knowledge Intensive<br />Given a ‘commonsense’ description of a case,<br />… provide the legal qualification<br />Examples:<br />HARNESS (van de Ven et al., 2008)<br />Initial approach of BEST (van Laarschot et al., 2005)<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  8. 8. Best Horseshoe in 2005<br />JURIX 2009<br />Case is inferred to be of some type of liability(articles 6:163-6:197 BW)<br />
  9. 9. Problems<br />Lightweight is inflexible<br />Knowledge intensive is too expensive<br />Requires complete and coherent case descriptions<br />Significant modelling effort<br />Maintenance costs (… especially in case law)<br />Quality assurance<br />Legal theoretical commitment<br />Translations have the form of definitions<br />But… can I use it to retrieve relevant cases?<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  10. 10. Search (some statistics)<br />Type of liability, represented as <br />an article in the Civil Code<br />a set of prototypical cases (selected by expert)<br />a set of relevant concepts<br />“Fingerprints”<br />Vector of weighted phrases<br />Measuring precision (Uijttenbroek et al., 2008)<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  11. 11. So, what next?<br />The legal qualification of a case is:<br />Too expensive<br />Theoretical over-commitment<br />and<br />Not necessarily useful for search (!)<br />But then… how should the gap be bridged?<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  12. 12. Annotation Perspective<br />Given an annotation task:<br />A layman will describe the facts<br />A legal professional will describe the qualification<br />JURIX 2009<br />Mappings should hold between descriptions of court proceedings, not concepts.<br />
  13. 13. The BestPortal Solution<br />Translate layman description to legal concepts<br />Search using fingerprints of legal concepts<br />Context in which layman concepts co-occur in a case determines the applicability of a legal concept<br /><ul><li>A mapping is not the definition of a concept
  14. 14. A mapping is inferred given the overlap between cases that may be described using concepts
  15. 15. Mappings classify both published and hypothetical case descriptions</li></ul>JURIX 2009<br />
  16. 16. Vocabulary<br />No definitions? No ontology…<br />Simple Knowledge Organization System<br />Lifting existing KOS’s to the Semantic Web<br />Every skos:Concept is an OWL individual<br />Lightweight semantic relations: broader, narrower, and related.<br />Lightweight mapping relations between skos:ConceptSchemes.<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  17. 17. Mapping in SKOS<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  18. 18. BestMap<br />Limitations of SKOS<br />No many-to-many mappings<br />Implicit assumption of extensionality<br />Concepts are used to annotate resources<br />BestMap Ontology<br />Extend SKOS with annotation-properties<br />A mapping is an OWL 2 class description<br /><br />JURIX 2009<br />
  19. 19. Connecting to SKOS (3)<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  20. 20. BestMap Mappings<br />A mapping class:<br />Classifies resources annotated using one vocabulary, and<br />Infers annotations using the other vocabulary<br />… it may be directed<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  21. 21. Example<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  22. 22. JURIX 2009<br />
  23. 23. … but now the mappings<br />Problem:<br />The Good Ol’ Knowledge Acquisition Bottleneck<br />BestMap provides little structure<br />“Riding School” as building, owner, buyer of fodder, etc.<br />… need for typed relations<br />Focus on the Unlawful Act<br />Case Frames (a.o. Winkels et al., 1998)<br />Thematic Roles as typed relations<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  24. 24. Example<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  25. 25. Discussion<br />Open Data and Knowledge Intensive approaches are limited <br />Lightweight but flexible approach<br />Extensible<br />KA bottleneck still exists, but <br />Minimal theoretical commitment<br />Useful for other expertise domains (e.g. medical information)<br />Use of standard technology (performance)<br />Evaluation<br />Do the mappings actually work?<br />Does BestPortal really improve access to court proceedings?<br />Justification of search results<br />Publish court proceedings as linked open data<br />e.g. connect to GeoNames<br />JURIX 2009<br />
  26. 26. JURIX 2009<br />