This paper describes a new concept of legal ontology together with an ontology development tool, called the European Legal Taxonomy Syllabus (ELTS). The tool is used to model the legal terminology created by the Uniform Terminology project on EU consumer protection law as an ontology.
ELTS is not a formal ontology in the standard sense, i.e., an axiomatic ontology formalized, for instance, in description logic. Rather, it is a lightweight ontology, i.e. a knowledge base storing low-level legal concepts, connected via low-level semantic relations, and related to linguistic patterns that denote legal concepts in several languages spoken in the European Union (EU). In other words, ELTS is a multi-lingual and multi-jurisdictional terminological vocabulary enriched with concepts denoted by vocabulary entries, with semantic relations between different concepts. The choice of such an architecture is based on past studies in comparative law and is motivated by the need to reveal the differences between national systems within the EU. Past literature in comparative law highlights that axiomatic ontologies freeze legal knowledge in an unreal steadiness, i.e., they render it disconnected from legal practice. Much more flexibility is needed to make the knowledge base acceptable to legal practitioners.
ELTS was developed together with legal practitioners on the basis of the comparative view of European law. The ontology framework is designed to help professionals study the meaning of national and European legal terms and how they inter-relate in the transposition of European Directives into national laws. The structure and user interface of ELTS is suitable for building multi-lingual, multi-jurisdictional legal ontologies in a bottom-up and collaborative manner, starting from the description of legal terms by legal experts. It also takes into account the interpretation of norms, the dynamic character of norms and the contextual character of legal concepts in that they are linked to their legal sources (legislation, case law and doctrine).
Boella, G., Di Caro, L., Graziadei, M., Cupi, L., Salaroglio, C.E., Humphreys, L., Konstantinov, H., Marko, K., Robaldo, L., Ruffini, C., Simov, K., Violato, A. & Stroetmann, V. (2015). Linking legal open data: Breaking the accessibility and language barrier in European legislation and case law. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL ’15 (pp. 171–175). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/2746090.2746106.
2.
Boella, G., Di Caro, L., Humphreys, L., Robaldo, L., Rossi, R. & van der Torre, L. (2016). Eunomos, a legal document and knowledge management system for the web to provide relevant, reliable and up-to-date information on the law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, to appear.
3.
Boella, G., Di Caro, L., Rispoli, D. & Robaldo, L. (2013a). A system for classifying multi-label text into EuroVoc. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL ’13 (pp. 239–240). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/2514601.2514635.
4.
Boella, G., Di Caro, L. & Robaldo, L. (2013b). Semantic Relation Extraction from Legislative Text Using Generalized Syntactic Dependencies and Support Vector Machines (pp. 218–225). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
5.
Boella, G., Di Caro, L., Ruggeri, A. & Robaldo, L. (2014). Learning from syntax generalizations for automatic semantic annotation. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 43(2), 231–246. doi:10.1007/s10844-014-0320-9.
6.
Boella, G., Humphreys, L., Martin, M., Rossi, P. & van der Torre, L. (2012). Eunomos, a legal document and knowledge management system to build legal services. In AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems. Models and Ethical Challenges for Legal Systems, Legal Language and Legal Ontologies, Argumentation and Software Agents (pp. 131–146). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35731-2_9.
7.
Boella, G., van der Torre, L. & Verhagen, H. (2007). Roles, an interdisciplinary perspective. Applied Ontology, 2(2), 81–88.
8.
Borgo, S. & Masolo, C. (2009). Ontological foundations of dolce. In S.Staab and R.Studer (Eds.), Handbook on Ontologies (2nd ed., pp. 361–382). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3_16.
9.
Breuker, J. (2004). Constructing a legal core ontology: LRI-core. In Proceedings of WONTO 2004.
10.
Buitelaar, P. (2010). Ontology-based semantic lexicons: Mapping between terms and object descriptions. In C.ren Huang, N.Calzolari, A.Gangemi, A.Lenci, A.Oltramari and L.Prevot (Eds.), Ontology and the Lexicon (pp. 212–223). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511676536.013.
11.
Cappelli, A., Lenzi, V.B., Sprugnoli, R. & Biagioli, C. (2007). Modelization of domain concepts extracted from the Italian privacy legislation. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Computational Semantics, Tilburg, Netherlands, 2007.
12.
Casanovas, P., Casellas, N., Tempich, C., Vrandečić, D. & Benjamins, R. (2007). OPJK and DILIGENT: Ontology modeling in a distributed environment. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 15(2), 171–186. doi:10.1007/s10506-007-9036-2.
13.
Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J. & Benjamins, R. (1998). The ontology of tasks and methods. In Proceedings of the Banff Knowledge Acquisition Workshop.
14.
Commission of the European Communities (2003). A more coherent European contract law an action plan. COM(2003) 68 final.
15.
Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N.Rescher (Ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action. University Pittsburgh Press.
16.
De Groot, G. (1999). Das ubersetzen juristischer terminologie. In D.Groot and R.Schulze (Eds.), Recht und Ubersetzen (pp. 11–46). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
17.
Desprès, S. & Szulman, S. (2007). Merging of legal micro-ontologies from European directives. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 15(2), 187–200. doi:10.1007/s10506-007-9028-2.
18.
Ehrmann, M., Cecconi, F., Vannella, D., McCrae, J.P., Cimiano, P. & Navigli, R. (2014). A multilingual semantic network as linked data: Lemon-BabelNet. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics.
19.
Endicott, T. (2008). The Value of Vagueness.
20.
Engers, T., Boer, A., Breuker, J., Valente, A. & Winkels, R. (2008). Ontologies in the legal domain. In Digital Government. Integrated Series in Information Systems (Vol. 17, pp. 233–261). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-71611-4_13.
21.
Falkner, G., Hartlapp, M., Leiber, S. & Treib, O. (2004). Non-compliance with EU directives in the member states: Opposition through the backdoor?West European Politics, 27(3). doi:10.1080/0140238042000228095.
22.
Francesconi, E. (2006). The Norme in Rete project: Standards and tools for Italian legislation. International Journal of Legal Information, 34(2), 358–376.
23.
Francesconi, E., Spinosa, P. & Tiscornia, D. (2007). A linguistic-ontological support for multilingual legislative drafting: The DALOS project. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques – LOAIT (pp. 103–111).
24.
Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A. & Schneider, L. (2002). Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management: Ontologies and the Semantic Web (pp. 166–181). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/3-540-45810-7_18.
25.
Gangemi, A., Sagri, M. & Tiscornia, D. (2005). A constructive framework for legal ontologies. In Law and the Semantic Web. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3369, pp. 97–124). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-32253-5_7.
26.
Gangemi, A., Sagri, M.T. & Tiscornia, D. (2003). Jur-Wordnet, a source of metadata for content description in legal information. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Legal Ontologies & Web Based Legal Information Management, Part of the International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2003), Edinburgh.
27.
Giunchiglia, F. & Zaihrayeu, I. (2009). Lightweight ontologies. In Encyclopedia of Database Systems (pp. 1613–1619). Berlin: Springer.
28.
Graziadei, M. (2004). Tuttifrutti. In P.Birks and A.Pretto (Eds.), Themes in Comparative Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
Gruber, T. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220. doi:10.1006/knac.1993.1008.
30.
Guarino, N. & Welty, C. (2002). Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean. Communications of the ACM, 45(2). doi:10.1145/503124.503150.
31.
Hart, H.L.A. (1958). Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harvard Law Review, 71(4). doi:10.2307/1338225.
32.
Hepp, M. (2007). Possible ontologies. how reality constrains the development of relevant ontologies?Internet Computing, IEEE, 1(1), 90–96. doi:10.1109/MIC.2007.20.
33.
Hobbs, J. (1998). The logical notation: Ontological promiscuity. In Chapter 2 of Discourse and Inference. Available at: http://www.isi.edu/~hobbs/disinf-tc.html.
34.
Hoekstra, R., Breuker, J., Di Bello, M. & Boer, E. (2007). The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT 2007).
35.
Hoijer, H. (1954). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In Language in Culture (pp. 92–105).
36.
Kelsen, H. (1941). The pure theory of law and analytical jurisprudence. Harvard Law Review, 55.
37.
Kelsen, H. (1992). An Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
Legrand, P. (2006). Antivonbar. Journal of Comparative Law, 1(1), 13–40.
39.
Liebwald, D. (2012). Law’s capacity for vagueness. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 25(4), 29–50.
40.
Makinson, D. & van der Torre, L.W.N. (2000). Input/output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 29(4), 383–408. doi:10.1023/A:1004748624537.
41.
Mandelkern, D. (2001). Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation Final Report. Paris: EU.
42.
Margolis, E. & Laurence, S. (1999). Concepts: Core Readings. Bradford Book.
43.
McCrae, J., Spohr, D. & Cimiano, P. (2011). Linking lexical resources and ontologies on the semantic web with lemon. In Proceedings of the 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference on the Semantic Web: Research and Applications – Part I, ESWC’11 (pp. 245–259). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
44.
Miller, G. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39–41. doi:10.1145/219717.219748.
45.
Palmirani, M. & Brighi, R. (2006). Time model for managing the dynamic of normative system. In Electronic Government (pp. 207–218). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/11823100_19.
46.
Peller, G. (1985). The metaphysics of American law. California Law Review, 73, 1151–1290. doi:10.2307/3480430.
47.
Poscher, R. (2011). Ambiguity and Vagueness in Legal Interpretation. Oxford Handbook on Language and Law. Oxford University Press.
48.
Pozzo, B. (2003). Harmonisation of European contract law and the need of creating a common terminology. European Review of Private Law, 6, 754–767.
49.
Rawls, J. (1955). Two concepts of rules. The Philosophical Review, 64, 3–32. doi:10.2307/2182230.
50.
Rissland, E. & Skalak, D. (1991). Cabaret: Rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 839–887. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90013-W.
51.
Robaldo, L. (2010a). Independent set readings and generalized quantifiers. The Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39(1), 23–58. doi:10.1007/s10992-009-9105-y.
52.
Robaldo, L. (2010b). Interpretation and inference with maximal referential terms. The Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 76(5), 373–388. doi:10.1016/j.jcss.2009.10.009.
53.
Robaldo, L. (2011). Distributivity, collectivity, and cumulativity in terms of (in)dependence and maximality. The Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 20(2), 233–271. doi:10.1007/s10849-010-9131-8.
54.
Robaldo, L., Caselli, T. & Grella, M. (2011a). Rule-based creation of timeml documents from dependency trees. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Around Man and Beyond, AI*IA’11 (pp. 389–394). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
55.
Robaldo, L., Caselli, T., Russo, I. & Grella, M. (2011b). From Italian text to timeml document via dependency parsing. In Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing – 12th International Conference, CICLing 2011. Proceedings, Part II (pp. 177–187). Tokyo, Japan. February 20–26, 2011.
56.
Robaldo, L., Humphreys, L., Sun, L., Cupi, L., Santos, C. & Muthuri, R. (2016). Combining input/output logic and reification for representing real-world obligations. In Post-Proceedings of 9th International Workshop on Juris-Informatics (JURISIN 2015). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence.
57.
Roventini, A., Alonge, A., Calzolari, N., Magnini, B. & Bertagna, F. (2000). ItalWordnet: A large semantic database for Italian. In Proc. of 2nd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC.
58.
Russel, B. (1923). Vagueness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy and Psychology, 1.
59.
Sacco, R. (1987). La traduction juridique: Un point de vue italien. Les Cahiers du Droit, 28(4), 845–859.
60.
Sacco, R. (1991). Legal formants: A dynamic approach to comparative law installments I and II. American Journal of Comparative Law, 39. doi:10.2307/840669.
61.
Sacco, R. (1999). Contract. European Review of Private Law, 2, 237–240.
62.
Sartor, G., Casanovas, P., Biasiotti, M. & Fernndez-Barrera, M. (2013). Approaches to Legal Ontologies: Theories, Domains, Methodologies. Law, Governance and Technology Series (Vol. 1). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.
63.
Schäfer, B. (1998). Inheritance principles and the community of heirs. In Formal Ontology in Information Systems (pp. 108–121). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
64.
Searle, J.R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press.
65.
Smith, B. (2008). Ontology. In The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information (p. 155). Wiley.
66.
Soames, S. (2012). Vagueness in the law. In M.Andrei (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law (p. 95). Routledge.
67.
Spinosa, P., Giardiello, G., Cherubini, M., Marchi, S., Venturi, G. & Montemagni, S. (2009). NLP-based metadata extraction for legal text consolidation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law ICAIL (pp. 40–49). ACM. doi:10.1145/1568234.1568240.
68.
Tiersma, P.M. (2006). Some myths about legal language. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 2(1), 29–50. doi:10.1191/1743872106lw035oa.
69.
Tiscornia, D. (2006). The LOIS project: Lexical ontologies for legal information sharing. In Proceedings of the V Legislative XML Workshop (pp. 189–204).
70.
Uschold, M. & Grüninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review, 2(2).
71.
Valente, A. (1995). Legal Knowledge Engineering: A Modelling Approach. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
72.
Valente, A. & Breuker, J. (1994). Ontologies: The missing link between legal theory and AI & law. In Legal Knowledge Based Systems JURIX 94: The Foundation for Legal Knowledge Systems (pp. 138–150). Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande.
73.
van Kralingen, R.W. (1995). Frame-Based Conceptual Models of Statute Law. Kluwer Law International.
74.
Vanderlinden, J. (1995). Comparer les Droits. Bruxelles: Story-Scientia.
75.
Vibert, H.-J., Jouvelot, P. & Pin, B. (2013). Legivoc – connectings laws in a changing world. Journal of Open Access to Law, 1(1).
76.
Villegas, M. & Bel, N. (2015). PAROLE/SIMPLE ‘lemon’ ontology and lexicons. Semantic Web, 6(4), 363–369. doi:10.3233/SW-140148.
77.
Violato, A. (2011). Legal taxonomy syllabus. In Demo at JIAMCATT Conference (the Joint Inter-Agency Meeting on Computer-Assisted Translation and Terminology at the United Nations Office).
78.
Vossen, P. (1998). EuroWordNet: A Multilingual Database with Lexical Semantic Networks. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
79.
Wahlgren, P. (1994). A general theory of artificial intelligence and law. In Legal Knowledge Based Systems JURIX 94: The Foundation for Legal Knowledge Systems (pp. 79–83).
80.
Winter, S.L. (1989). Transcendental nonsense, metaphoric reasoning, and the cognitive stakes for law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 137(4), 1105–1237. doi:10.2307/3312131.
81.
Zhang, Q. (1998). Fuzziness-vagueness-generality-ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics, 1.
