Representing Judicial Argumentation in the Semantic Web

Ceci, Marcello

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45960-7_13

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The axioms concerning law relevancy and law application were removed from the ontology and moved to the rules layer, in order to have them applied not only on the ontology library's knowledge base, but also on the new knowledge derived from the application of the rules. Results of this can be found in [14]. Computability was not an issue in the last ontology library version (<5 seconds reasoning time on a Intel i5@3.30 Ghz), while the Carneades reasoner was moderately encumbered by the application of the rules to the ontology (8-15 seconds in the example described in Chapter 4).…”

Section: Evaluation Of the Ontology Librarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The argumentation system described in [14,15] allows combining the features of the DL-based ontology with non-monotonic logics such as Defeasible Logics. In particular, Carneades is based on Walton's theory [25] and also gives account for most of Prakken's consideration on the subject [43] including argumentation schemes and burden of proof.…”

Section: A Bridge Towards Judicial Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An OWL ontology library representing judicial interpretations

Ceci

Gangemi

2016

Self Cite

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

Section: Evaluation Of the Ontology Librarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Bridge Towards Judicial Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

An OWL ontology library representing judicial interpretations

Ceci

Gangemi

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Compliance Checking in the Energy Domain via W3C Standards

Anim,

Robaldo,

Wyner

2024

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patterns for legal compliance checking in a decidable framework of linked open data

Francesconi

Governatori²

2022

Artif Intell Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an approach for legal compliance checking in the Semantic Web which can be effectively applied for applications in the Linked Open Data environment. It is based on modeling deontic norms in terms of ontology classes and ontology property restrictions. It is also shown how this approach can handle norm defeasibility. Such methodology is implemented by decidable fragments of OWL 2, while legal reasoning is carried out by available decidable reasoners. The approach is generalised by presenting patterns for modeling deontic norms and norms compliance checking.

show abstract

Representing Judicial Argumentation in the Semantic Web

Cited by 3 publications

References 21 publications

An OWL ontology library representing judicial interpretations

An OWL ontology library representing judicial interpretations

Compliance Checking in the Energy Domain via W3C Standards

Patterns for legal compliance checking in a decidable framework of linked open data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About