Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (4):361-387 (2008)
The paper gives ontologies in the Web Ontology Language (OWL) for Legal Case-based Reasoning (LCBR) systems, giving explicit, formal, and general specifications of a conceptualisation LCBR. Ontologies for different systems allows comparison and contrast between them. OWL ontologies are standardised, machine-readable formats that support automated processing with Semantic Web applications. Intermediate concepts, concepts between base-level concepts and higher level concepts, are central in LCBR. The main issues and their relevance to ontological reasoning and to LCBR are discussed. Two LCBR systems (AS-CATO, which is based on CATO, and IBP) are analysed in terms of basic and intermediate concepts. Central components of the OWL ontologies for these systems are presented, pointing out differences and similarities. The main novelty of the paper is the ontological analysis and representation in OWL of LCBR systems. The paper also emphasises the important issues concerning the representation and reasoning of intermediate concepts.
|Keywords||OWL Ontology Legal reasoning Legal cases Case-based reasoning|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values.Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon & Giovanni Sartor - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence 150 (1-2):97-143.
A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning.H. Prakken & G. Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
Deduction and Justification in the Law. The Role of Legal Terms and Concepts.Lars Lindahl - 2004 - Ratio Juris 17 (2):182-202.
An Empirical Investigation of Reasoning with Legal Cases Through Theory Construction and Application.Alison Chorley & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (3-4):323-371.
Citations of this work BETA
A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW]Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
A Legal Case OWL Ontology with an Instantiation of Popov V. Hayashi.Adam Wyner & Rinke Hoekstra - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):83-107.
Similar books and articles
An Ontology of Physical Causation as a Basis for Assessing Causation in Fact and Attributing Legal Responsibility.Jos Lehmann & Aldo Gangemi - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (3):301-321.
A Comparison of Four Ontologies for the Design of Legal Knowledge Systems.Pepijn R. S. Visser & Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon - 1998 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 6 (1):27-57.
The IKBALS Project: Multi-Modal Reasoning in Legal Knowledge Based Systems. [REVIEW]John Zeleznikow, George Vossos & Daniel Hunter - 1993 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (3):169-203.
A Legal Ontology Refinement Support Environment Using a Machine-Readable Dictionary.Masaki Kurematsu & Takahira Yamaguchi - 1997 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):119-137.
Toward Using Bio-Ontologies in the Semantic Web: Trade-Offs Between Ontology Languages.Mariano Rodr´Iguez - unknown
Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Information Management.Joost Breuker, André Valente & Radboud Winkels - 2004 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):241-277.
A Methodology to Create Legal Ontologies in a Logic Programming Based Web Information Retrieval System.José Saias & Paulo Quaresma - 2004 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):397-417.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads45 ( #115,499 of 2,168,955 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #346,364 of 2,168,955 )
How can I increase my downloads?