Application of a knowledge-based ontology of the legal domain in collaborative workspaces

Mommers, L.

doi:10.1145/1047788.1047799

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The assessment may become more focused on its content (cf. Mommers 2003). The lack of face to face communication may increase the distance between information providers and information users, resulting in a potentially more neutral assessment of the merits of a piece of information.…”

Section: Four Functional Areas Of Virtualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimacy and the Virtualization of Dispute Resolution

Mommers¹

2005

Artif Intell Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. For any type of institutionalized dispute resolution, legitimacy is a crucial characteristic, as legitimate dispute resolution promotes, for instance, general trust in state institutions and participation in economic activity. A lack of legitimacy will prevent the acceptance of dispute resolution, and thereby its use. Although many textbook definitions limit the meaning of legitimacy to legality, in its every-day use legitimacy is in fact a much broader concept. It encompasses different criteria relating to the nature of dispute resolution: is a form of dispute resolution properly embedded in a reliable institutional environment?, and: are its outcomes properly underpinned? Virtualization concerns the ways in which information and communication technologies affect administration, communication, accessibility and assessment. As an example of virtualization in dispute resolution, a scenario about on-line feedback is scrutinized. This scenario comprises the implementation of a feedback system to enable participants in an instance of dispute resolution to comment on various aspects of the dispute resolving process.

show abstract

Section: Four Functional Areas Of Virtualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimacy and the Virtualization of Dispute Resolution

Mommers¹

2005

Artif Intell Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Section 2 in this article is partly based on an Icail conference publication (Mommers 2003). The research described was originally funded by the Dutch Science Foundation under number 415-03-034.…”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Searching for arguments: applying a knowledge‐based ontology of the legal domain

Mommers

2004

Information & Communications Technology Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe concept of knowledge takes an important place in the representation of the legal domain, because a large part of that domain consists of rules, norms, thoughts and skills that, ideally, can be qualified as knowledge. As such, the value of knowledge is unchallenged. However, what knowledge in the legal domain amounts to, remains obscure on many occasions. This article provides a brief overview of a conceptual model (an ontology) of the legal domain, based on the concept of knowledge. The research underlying this article is a follow-up to earlier work on legal ontologies (cf. Hage 1987, Van Kralingen 1995, Visser 1995, Oskamp 1998.This article describes the potential contribution of legal theory to the analysis of the concept of knowledge in the legal domain. It does so in order to unveil the meaning of this concept, e.g., in the phrase 'legal knowledge representation'. Often, knowledge representation refers to the representation of elements of the legal domain and relations between these elements, rather than to knowledge about these entities and relations. If knowledge is considered something 'in the head' of lawyers, an analysis of the difference between knowledge about a domain and the domain itself helps to prevent conceptual confusion. Thus, it is directly relevant to a well-founded legal ontology.In this article, I explain the foundations of the knowledge-based ontology, and I explain how its constituents can be used for innovative ICT applications for use in the legal domain. First, I discuss the role and value of knowledge in a model of the legal domain, and the basic constituents of the model (section 2). Second, I demonstrate the practical relevance of the ontology by proposing a search function based on a distinction between structure and content of legal argumentation (section 3). Third, I provide a conclusion (section 4).

show abstract

“…In the legal domain, ontologies are considered to establish the missing link between legal theory and AI & law [14]. They are defined as generalized conceptual models of specific parts of the legal domain [15]. They provide stable foundations for knowledge representation in this domain [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They are defined as generalized conceptual models of specific parts of the legal domain [15]. They provide stable foundations for knowledge representation in this domain [15]. Legal ontologies have been developed and used for legal knowledge management and as knowledge bases in legal knowledge systems [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capturing the Basics of the GDPR in a Well-Founded Legal Domain Modular Ontology

Ghosh

Abdulrab

2021

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary goal of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is to regulate the rights and duties of citizens and organizations over personal data protection. Implementing the GDPR is recently gaining much importance for legal reasoning and compliance checking purposes. In this work, we aim to capture the basics of GDPR in a well-founded legal domain modular ontology named OPPD (Ontology for the Protection of Personal Data). Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling (ODCM), ontology layering, modularization, and reuse processes are applied. These processes aim to support the ontology engineer in overcoming the complexity of the legal knowledge and developing an ontology model faithful to reality. ODCM is used for grounding OPPD in the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO). Ontology modularization and layering aim to simplify the ontology building process. Ontology reuse focuses on selecting and reusing Conceptual Ontology Patterns (COPs) from UFO and the legal core ontology UFO-L. OPPD intends to overcome the lack of a representation of legal procedures that most ontologies encountered. The potential use of OPPD is proposed to formalize the GDPR rules by combining ontological reasoning and Logic Programming.

show abstract

Application of a knowledge-based ontology of the legal domain in collaborative workspaces

Cited by 9 publications

References 7 publications

Legitimacy and the Virtualization of Dispute Resolution

Legitimacy and the Virtualization of Dispute Resolution

Searching for arguments: applying a knowledge‐based ontology of the legal domain

Capturing the Basics of the GDPR in a Well-Founded Legal Domain Modular Ontology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About