David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):119-137 (1997)
This paper discusses how to refine a given initial legal ontology using an existing MRD (Machine-Readable Dictionary). There are two hard issues in the refinement process. One is to find out those MRD concepts most related to given legal concepts. The other is to correct bugs in a given legal ontology, using the concepts extracted from an MRD. In order to resolve the issues, we present a method to find out the best MRD correspondences to given legal concepts, using two match algorithms. Moreover, another method called a static analysis is given to refine a given legal ontology, based on the comparison between the initial legal ontology and the best MRD correspondences to given legal concepts. We have implemented a software environment to help a user refine a given legal ontology based on these methods. The empirical results have shown that the environment works well in the field of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.
|Keywords||ontology refinement legal ontologies machine-readable dictionaries spell match definition match static analysis Contracts for the International Sale of Goods|
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
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.
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.
Brian Bix (2004). A Dictionary of Legal Theory. Oxford University Press.
Jos Lehmann, Joost Breuker & Bob Brouwer (2004). Causation in AI and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):279-315.
Giovanni Sartor (2009). Legal Concepts as Inferential Nodes and Ontological Categories. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (3):217-251.
Joost Breuker, André Valente & Radboud Winkels (2004). Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Information Management. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):241-277.
Sylvie Despres & Sylvie Szulman (2007). Merging of Legal Micro-Ontologies From European Directives. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (2):187-200.
Adam Wyner (2008). An Ontology in Owl for Legal Case-Based Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (4):361-387.
Guiraude Lame (2004). Using NLP Techniques to Identify Legal Ontology Components: Concepts and Relations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):379-396.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads23 ( #180,223 of 1,938,528 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #288,361 of 1,938,528 )
How can I increase my downloads?