Semantic Web: A Legal Case Study

Semantic Web Technologies: Trends and Research in Ontology-based Systems

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 259-280

  Casanovas, Pompeu ^a   Casellas, Núria ^a   Vallbé, Joan Josep ^a   Poblet, Marta ^a   Benjamins, V Richard ^a   Blázquez, Mercedes ^a   Peña, Raúl ^a   Contreras, Jesús ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

FAQ subsystem; Iuriservice system high level architecture; Legal knowledge ontologies; Ontology graph matching; Ontology of Professional Judicial Knowledge (OPJK); PROTON (ProtoOntology); SEKT technology integration; Semantic Web legal case study; User profile

Indexed keywords

EID: 56749168341     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/047003033X.ch12     Document Type: Chapter

References (35)

1. Ayuso M et al. 2003. 'Jueces jóvenes en España, 2002. Análisis estadístico de las encuestas a los jueces en su primer destino (Promociones 48/49 y 50).' Internal Report for the General Council of the Judiciary, within the framework of the Project 'Observatory of Judicial Culture', SEC-2001-2581-C02-01/02.
2. Benjamins VR, Casanovas P, Breuker J, Gangemi A. 2005. 'Law and the Semantic Web, an Introduction. In Law and the Semantic Web, Benjamins et al. (ed). Springer Verlag: London, Berlin.
3. Benjamins VR, Contreras J, Blázquez M, Rodrigo L, Casanovas P, Poblet M. 2004. 'The SEKT Legal use case components: Ontology and architecture'. In: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2004: The Seventeenth Annual Conference, Gordon T F. IOS Press: Amsterdam, pp69-77.
4. Blankenburg E. 1999. Legal culture on every conceptual level. In: Globalization and Legal Cultures. Feest J. (ed.). IISL Oñati, pp11-19.
5. Bösser 2005. Die Analyse der Bedürfnisse und Präferenzen von professionellen Nutzern von Information. 47th meeting of the section Anthropotechnologie of the DGLR - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt.
6. Breuker J, Elhag A, Petkov E, Winkels R. 2002. Ontologies for Legal Information Serving and Knowledge Management. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference. Amsterdam, IOS Press, pp73-82.
7. Breuker J, Winkels R. 2003. Use and reuse of legal ontologies in knowledge engineering and information management, ICAIL03 ICAIL 2003 Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Web Based Legal Information Management, Edinburgh, http:// lri.jur.uva.nl/~winkels/legontICAIL2003.html
8. Casanovas P. 1999. Pragmatics and Legal Culture. ICPS Working Paper n. 159. Barcelona: Institut de Cie`ncies Polítiques i Socials. http://www.diba.es/icps/ working_papers/docs/wp_i_159.pdf
9. Casanovas P, Gorroñogoitia J, Contreras J, Blázquez M, Casellas N, Vallbé JJ, Poblet M, Ramos F, Benjamins VR. 2005a. SEKT Legal Use Case Components: Ontology and Architectural Design. In Proceedings of ICAIL 05. ACM, Bologna, 2005, pp188-194.
10. Casanovas P, Poblet M, Casellas N, Contreras J, Benjamins VR, Blázquez M. 2005b. Supporting newly-appointed judges: A legal knowledge management case study. Journal of Knowledge Management 9(5):7-27.
11. Casellas N, Blázquez M, Kiryakov A, Casanovas P, Poblet M, Benjamins R. 2005. OPJK into PROTON: Legal Domain Ontology Integration into an Upper-level Ontology. In: OTM Workshops 2005, LNCS 3762, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Heidelberg, Meersman R. et al., (eds). pp846-855.
12. Chan CW. 2003. Cognitive modeling and representation of knowledge in ontological engineering. Brain and Mind 4:269-282.
13. Clancey WJ, Sachs P, Sierhus M, Hoof RV. 1998. Brahms: Simulating practice for work systems design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 49: 831-865.
14. Eraut M. 1992. Developing the knowledge base: A process perspective on professional education. In: Learning to Effect, Barnett R. ed. Open University Press: Buckingham, pp98-18.
15. Friedman LM. 1969. Legal culture and social development. Law and Society Review 4:29-44.
16. Friedman LM. 1975. The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective. Russell Sage Foundation:
17. Gangemi A, Breuker J. 2002. Harmonising Legal Ontologies. Ontoweb. IST Project 2000-29243. http://ontoweb.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/About/Deliverables.
18. Gangemi A, Pisanelli DM, Steve G. 2001. A formal Ontology Framework to represent Norm Dynamics. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Legal Ontologies, Amsterdam.
19. Gangemi A, Sagri M, Tiscornia D. 2003. Metadata for Content Description in Legal Information, in ICAIL 2003 Workshop on Legal Ontologies & Web based legal information management, June 2003, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. http:// www.lri.jur.uva.nl/~winkels/LegOnt2003/Gangemi.pdf.
20. Gil R, Grcía R, Delgado J. 2005. An interoperable framework for Intellectual Property Rights using web ontologies. In: LOAIT-Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques, Lehmann, J Biasiotti, MA Francesconi, E Sagri MT (eds) Nijmegen: Wolf legal publishers, pp135-148.
21. Gómez-Pérez A, Corcho O, Fernández-López, M. 2002. Ontological Engineering: With Examples from the Areas of Knowledge Management, E-Commerce and Semantic Web (Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing). Springer-Verlag: London.
22. Jarrar M, Meersman R. 2001. Practical Ontologies and their Interpretations in Applications-the DOGMA experiment. http.//www.starlab.vwb.ac.be/publications/ STAR-2001-04.pdf.
23. Kralingen van RW. 1995. Frame-based Conceptual Models of Statute Law, Computer/ Law Series, No. 16. Kluwer Law International. The Hague, The Netherlands.
24. McCarty LT. 1989. A language for legal discourse, I. Basic features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vancouver, Canada, pp180-189.
25. Menzies T, Clancey WJ. 1998. Editorial: the challenge of situated cognition for symbolic knowledge-based systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 49:767-769.
26. Roche C. 2000. Corporate ontologies and concurrent engineering. Journal of Material Processing Technology 107:187-193.
27. Rodrigo L, Blázquez M, Casanovas P, Poblet M. 2004. D10.1.1. Before Analysis. Case Study-Intelligent Integrated Decision Support for Legal Professionals. State of the art. SEKT. EU Project IST-2003-506826.
28. Stamper RK. 1996. Signs, Information, Norms and Systems. In: Signs of Work, Holmqvist, B Andersen P (eds). De Gruyter: Berlin.
29. Valente A. 1995. A Modeling Approach to Legal Knowledge Engineering. IOS Press: Amsterdam, Tokyo.
30. Valente A. 2005. Types and roles of legal ontologies. In Law and the Semantic Web. Legal Ontologies, Methodologies, Legal Information Retreval, and Applications, Benjamins VR et al. (eds). LNAI 3369, Springer: Berlin, pp65-76.
31. Valente A, Breuker J, Brouwer B. 1999. Legal modeling and automated reasoning with ON-LINE. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 51:1079-1125.
32. Vallbé J-J, Mortí MA, Fortuna B, Jakulin A, Mladenic D, Casanovas P. 2005. Stemming and lemmatisation Improving knowledge management through language processing techniques. In: The Regulation of Electronic Social Systems. Law and the Semantic Web, Casanovas P, Bourcier D, Noriega P, Cáceres E, Galindo F (eds). In Proceedings of the B4-Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Law. IVR' 05-Granada, 25th-27th May. Web location. http.//www.lefis.org. XXII World Conference of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM México [in press].
33. Visser PRS. 1995. Knowledge Specification for Multiple Legal Tasks; A Case Study of the Interaction Problem in the Legal Domain, Computer / Law Series, No. 17, Kluwer Law International: The Hague, The Netherlands.
34. Visser PRS, Bench Capon, TJM. 1998. A comparaison of four ontologies for the design of legal knowledge systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6:27-57.
35. Zhu H. et al. 2002. An Approach for semantic search by matching RDF graphs. In Special Track on Semantic Web at the 15th International Flairs Conference (AAAI), May 2002, Florida, USA. http://www.dit.hemut.edu.vn/tru/SPECIAL-STUDIES/ rdf-semantic-matching.pdf