David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):241-277 (2004)
In this article we describe two core ontologies of law that specify knowledge that is common to all domains of law. The first one, FOLaw describes and explains dependencies between types of knowledge in legal reasoning; the second one, LRI-Core ontology, captures the main concepts in legal information processing. Although FOLaw has shown to be of high practical value in various applied European ICT projects, its reuse is rather limited as it is rather concerned with the structure of legal reasoning than with legal knowledge itself: as many other “legal core ontologies”, FOLaw is therefore rather an epistemological framework than an ontology. Therefore, we also developed LRI-Core. As we argue here that legal knowledge is based to a large extend on common-sense knowledge, LRI-Core is particularly inspired by research on abstract common-sense concepts. The main categories of LRI-Core are: physical, mental and abstract concepts. Roles cover in particular social worlds. Another special category are occurrences; terms that denote events and situations. We illustrate the use of LRI-Core with an ontology for Dutch criminal law, developed in the e-Court European project.
|Keywords||common-sense ontology legal core ontologies legal reasoning|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Kevin D. Ashley & Will Bridewell (2010). Emerging AI & Law Approaches to Automating Analysis and Retrieval of Electronically Stored Information in Discovery Proceedings. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (4):311-320.
Adam Wyner & Rinke Hoekstra (2012). A Legal Case OWL Ontology with an Instantiation of Popov V. Hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):83-107.
Similar books and articles
Adam Wyner (2008). An Ontology in Owl for Legal Case-Based Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (4):361-387.
Jos Lehmann, Joost Breuker & Bob Brouwer (2004). Causation in AI and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):279-315.
José Saias & Paulo Quaresma (2004). A Methodology to Create Legal Ontologies in a Logic Programming Based Web Information Retrieval System. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):397-417.
Bjorn Fasterling (2009). The Managerial Law Firm and the Globalization of Legal Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (1):21 - 34.
Guiraude Lame (2004). Using NLP Techniques to Identify Legal Ontology Components: Concepts and Relations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):379-396.
Gian Piero Zarri (2007). Ontologies and Reasoning Techniques for (Legal) Intelligent Information Retrieval Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (3):251-279.
V. R. Benjamins, J. Contreras, P. Casanovas, M. Ayuso, M. Becue, L. Lemus & C. Urios (2004). Ontologies of Professional Legal Knowledge as the Basis for Intelligent IT Support for Judges. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):359-378.
Sylvie Despres & Sylvie Szulman (2007). Merging of Legal Micro-Ontologies From European Directives. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (2):187-200.
Pepijn R. S. Visser & Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon (1998). A Comparison of Four Ontologies for the Design of Legal Knowledge Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6 (1):27-57.
Erich Schweighofer & Doris Liebwald (2007). Advanced Lexical Ontologies and Hybrid Knowledge Based Systems: First Steps to a Dynamic Legal Electronic Commentary. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (2):103-115.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #169,941 of 1,101,086 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #290,337 of 1,101,086 )
How can I increase my downloads?