Fill the Gap in the Legal Knowledge Modelling

Palmirani, Monica; Contissa, Giuseppe; Rubino, Rossella

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04985-9_28

Cited by 23 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rule: JINT_RecallNonOppressiveClauses If (C1 recalled_by B1) and (B1 hasfactor RecallsNonOppressiveClauses) and (ASSUMPTION_C1 judged_as Cass.5860/1998) Then (not C1 applies SpecificallySigned) and (C1 RecallException) Please notice the particular role given to the precedent "Cass.5860/1998": it is an assumption 9 , so it does not prevent the system from suggesting this particular interpretation (and the precedent) as a result of the reasoning process on cases which share the other conditions, even if that precedent is not explicitly recalled. At the same time, if the precedent is directly cited in the case, the system is capable of putting a stronger accent on that interpretation, not only by assuming its applicability but by directly stating it.…”

Section: Modelling Of the Precedentmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The research presented in this paper stems from the author's work on a framework for case-law semantics whose goal is to exploit Semantic Web technologies to achieve isomorphism between a text fragment (the only legally binding expression of a norm) and a legal rule, thus filling the gap between the semantics of legal documents and the syntax of legal norms, as explained in [9]. More precisely, the framework models the content of judicial documents, i.e.…”

Section: The Judicial Framework Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Representing Judicial Argumentation in the Semantic Web

Ceci

2014

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper presents part of a Semantic Web framework for precedent modelling. The research applies theoretical models of legal knowledge representation and rule interchange for applications in the legal domain to a set of real legal documents. The aim is to represent the legal concepts and the argumentation patterns contained in a judgement, as expressed by the judicial text. The bases of the framework are a set of metadata associated with judicial concepts and an ontology library, providing a solid ground for an argumentation system based on defeasible rules. The present paper shortly presents the metadata and ontology layers, focusing on the rules and argumentation layers. In the example provided (an application of the Carneades Argumentation System) the framework reconstructs the legal interpretations performed by the judge in a specific judicial decision, presenting its reasoning path, and suggesting possible different interpretations in the light of relevant code-and case-law.

show abstract

Section: Modelling Of the Precedentmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: The Judicial Framework Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representing Judicial Argumentation in the Semantic Web

Ceci

2014

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This work had a follow-up in the EU Project ESTRELLA, 56 in which the ontology for Legal Knowledge Interchange Format-LKIF was finally created [17,61,63]. LKIF was used in several projects to model deeper legal concepts [86] and represent legal documents. Several ontologies were developed on top of the work done in CENMetaLex and on Akoma Ntoso: an ontology for managing a legislative text's evolution over time and its linguistic variants [78,79]; an ontology for managing modifications of norms [49,[82][83][84]; an ontology for modelling relations between authorities, agents, and roles in the process of producing a legal document [7].…”

Section: Semantic Web and The Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic Web for the Legal Domain: The next step

Casanovas

Palmirani

Peroni

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Ontology-driven systems with reasoning capabilities in the legal field are now better understood. Legal concepts are not discrete, but make up a dynamic continuum between common sense terms, specific technical use, and professional knowledge, in an evolving institutional reality. Thus, the tension between a plural understanding of regulations and a more general understanding of law is bringing into view a new landscape in which general legal frameworks -grounded in well-known legal theories stemming from 20th-century c. legal positivism or sociological jurisprudence -are made compatible with specific forms of rights management on the Web. In this sense, Semantic Web tools are not only being designed for information retrieval, classification, clustering, and knowledge management. They can also be understood as regulatory tools, i.e. as components of the contemporary legal architecture, to be used by multiple stakeholders -front-line practitioners, policymakers, legal drafters, companies, market agents, and citizens. That is the issue broadly addressed in this Special Issue on the Semantic Web for the Legal Domain, overviewing the work carried out over the last fifteen years, and seeking to foster new research in this field, beyond the state of the art.

show abstract

“…-Text-to-knowledge morphism: the aim is to design the knowledge that can be extracted from a (textual) judicial decision, or a fragment of it, as a module in an ontology library, so that each module constitutes a particular morphism of the legal meaning expressed by that text [38]. This means that the ontology should be easily extended with entities extracted from text, therefore it should contain as many constraints as needed for judicial reasoning, without over constraining with unneeded axioms (i.e.…”

Section: Tasks and Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An OWL ontology library representing judicial interpretations

Ceci

Gangemi

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The article introduces a formal model of legal knowledge that relies on the metadata contained in judicial documents, and JudO, a judicial ontology library that represents the interpretations performed by a judge when conducting legal reasoning towards the adjudication of a case. For the purposes of this application, judicial interpretation is intended in the restricted sense of the acts of judicial subsumption performed by a judge when considering a material instance (a token in Searle's terminology), and assigning it to an abstract category (type). JudO is centred on a core ontology featuring some judicial ontology patterns, which take advantage of constructs introduced by OWL2, in order to provide appropriate legal semantics, while retaining a strong connection to source documents (i.e. fragments of legal texts). The final goal of the framework is to detect and model of jurisprudence-related information directly from the text, and to perform shallow reasoning on the resulting knowledge base. JudO also constitutes the basis for the application of argumentation patterns through reasoning on a set of rules, which represent the grounding of judicial interpretations in deontic and defeasible logics.Keywords: legal knowledge modeling, OWL2, ontology design patterns, case-based legal reasoning, judicial interpretation «I see, these books are probably law books, and it is an essential part of the justice dispensed here that you should be condemned not only in innocence but also in ignorance».-Franz Kafka, The Trial.

show abstract

Fill the Gap in the Legal Knowledge Modelling

Cited by 23 publications

References 4 publications

Representing Judicial Argumentation in the Semantic Web

Representing Judicial Argumentation in the Semantic Web

Semantic Web for the Legal Domain: The next step

An OWL ontology library representing judicial interpretations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About