Pompeu Casanovas

Ontologías jurídicas y la segunda generación de Servicios Web

Jornadas sobre Derecho y Tecnología

Zaragoza 4-5 Mayo 2009

Pompeu Casanovas

Índice• El futuro de Internet (Web 3.0)• Obstáculos al desarrollo de Internet• Una web de servicios (2ª generación de Web

Semántica)• Ontologías jurídicas para servcios Web• Algunas ideas: (i) ITLaw + ITLawyers, (ii) derecho

relacional, (iii) justicia relacional, (iv) estrategias híbridas en la construcción de ontologías (v) algunos retos (multimedia, e.g. o la adquisición de conocimiento)

WEB

• Web 1.0: Internet• Web 2.0: Expresividad (Tags): Flikr,

YouTube, Wikipedia, Facebook…• Web 3.0: Expresividad + Semántica (web de

objetos vinculados –”linkados” – y no de páginas Web)

Internet de Services

A multitude of connected IT services, which are offered, bought, sold, used, repurposed, and composed

by a worldwide network of service providers, consumers, aggregators,

and brokers

- resulting in -

a new way of offering, using, and organising IT supported

functionality.

Fuente: John Domingue (2008)

GOVERNMENTeGovernment, eEnergy,eHealth, Public Security

BUSINESS/SCIENCECluster/SME, new Service and

Business Models

CITIZEN/CONSUMER/EMPLOYEE

“Digital Lifestyle”, New Media, Communities, Collaboration

INTERNETOF THINGS

MULTIMEDIACONTENT

SERVICE-ORIENTEDSOFTWARE

APPLICATIONS

The Big Picture

Adapted from Prof. Wahlster, 2007

Modelo democrático

• Los autores han subrayado que la Web 2.0 implica un modelo democrático de participación e interacción. La gente puede compartir sus ideas y cooperar en una construcción en común (Motta, 2006) Enriquecer con semántica el proceso parece una consecuencia natural desde la perspectiva de la WS. Pero… no es tan fácil!

(1) Obstáculos: falta de conocimiento

• “Because no systemic measurements activities exist for collecting rigorous empirical Internet data, in many ways, we don’t really know what the Internet actually is. Thus, we don’t know the total amounts and patterns of data traffic, the Internet’s growth rate, the extent and locations of congestion, patterns and distribution of ISP interconnectivity, and many other things that are critical if we’re to understand what actually works in the Internet. These data are hidden because ISPs consider such information proprietary and worry that competitors could use it to steal customers or otherwise harm their business. The information might not even be collected because no economic incentive exists to do so, nor do any regulations require this collection” (Claffy et al. 2007).

(2) Efectos sociales indeseados

(3) Actuación jurídica oclusiva!

SEKT-D12.5.5

Porcentajes día/abogados Poblet, Benjamins, Casanovas Fuente: SEKT SEKT D12.5.5

Uso creciente de Internet I

• En 2008, un40% de los despachos iindicaban un gasto de aprox. $ 8.000-$ 17.000 por. 72% de los encuestados decían que accedían electrónicamente a los juzgados, un cecimiento de más del 55% sobre la encuesta del 2007.

Source: ABA-2008 Tech Survey Report

Uso creciente de Internet II

• E-MAIL: e-mail attachments (92%, sobre el 80% en 2007)

• MOBILIDAD: Casi todos los abogados indican que pueden consultar el e-mail fuera del despacho (98%) vía Smartphone/BlackBerry (59%).

Fuente: ABA 2008 Tech Survey Report

(4) Problemas Técnicos

• “Why has the Semantic Web had so little effect on search services? And, even more worrying, why does it have such little presence in the agendas of fundamental information-retrieval research programs, search engine designers, and search startups? What’s stopping researchers in the IR and Semantic Web communities from moving more bravely in the direction of promised next-generation search engines? (Baeza-Yates et al. Yahoo, 2008)”

Respuesta

• “We put forward three possible reasons:• First, this integration is an extremely hard

scientific problem;• Second, the Web imposes hard scalability and

performance restrictions;• Third, there’s a cultural divide between the

Semantic Web and Information Retrieval disciplines”

Niveles de lenguajes de la WS Berners-Lee Cody Burleson (2007).

Web Semántica

Qué es una ontología? (Breuker)

• `formal specification of conceptualization’ (Gruber 94)

• “An ontology defines the terms used to describe and represent an area of knowledge” (Jeff Heflin, OWL-Use cases,

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webont-req-20040210/ ) •

– terms: concept (= meaning)– knowledge representation: from informal (e.g text) to

machine interpretable (via formalization)– ontology: `what is’ ≈ what we know

Ontologías jurídicas (hasta el 2002)• LLD [Language for Legal Discourse, L.T. McCarty, 1989]:

– Atomic formula, Rules and Modalities.• NOR [Norma, R.K. Stamper, 1991, 1996]:

– Agents Behavioral invariants, Realizations.• LFU [Functional Ontology for Law, R.W. van Kranlinger; P.R.S. Visser, 1995]:

– Normative Knowledge, World knowledge, Responsibility knowledge, Reactive knowledge and Creative knowledge.

• FBO [Frame-Based Ontology of Law, A. Valente, 1995]: – Norms, Acts and Concepts Descriptions].

• LRI-Core Legal Ontology [J. Breuker et al., 2002]: – Objects, Processes, Physical entities, Mental entities, Agents, Communicative

Acts.• IKF-IF-LEX Ontology for Norm Comparaison [A. Gangemi et al., 2001]:

– Agents, Institutive Norms, Instrumental provisions; Regulative norms; Open-textured legal notions, Norm dynamics.

Trojahn, Quaresma and Vieira Table of Legal Ontologies (2008)

Ontology or Project Application Type Role Character Construction

Language

McCarty’s Language of Legal Discourse

General language for expressing legal knowledge

Knowledge representation, highly structured

Understand a domain General Manual English

Valente & Breuker’s Functional Ontology of Law

General architecture for legal problem solving

Knowledge base in Ontolingua, highly structured

Understand a domain, reasoning and problem solving

General Manual English

Van Kralingen & Visser’s Frame Ontology

General language for expressing legal knowledge, legal KBSs

Knowledge representation, moderately structured (also as a knowledge base in Ontolingua)


Mommer’s Knowledge-based Model of Law

General language for expressing legal knowledge

Knowledge base in English very highly structured


Breuker & Hoekstra’s LRI-Core Ontology

Support knowledge acquisition for legal domain ontologies

Knowledge base inDAML+OIL/RDF using Protege (converted into OWL)


Hoekstra & Breuker’s LKIF-Core Ontology

Support knowledge acquisition for legal domain ontologies

Knowledge base in OWL, highly structured


Gangemi, Sagri & Tiscornia’s JurWordNet

Extension to the legal domain of WordNet

Lexical Knowledge base in DOLCE (DAML), lightly structured

Organize and structure information

General Manual Italian

Benjamins, Casanovas et al. Ontologiy of Professional Legal Knowledge (OPLK)

Intelligent FAQ system (information retrieval) for judges (Iuriservice)

RDF.. Knowledge base in Protégé, highly structured (converted in OWL)

Semantic indexing and search

Domain Semi-automa

ted

Spanish

Casellas, N. et al. Ontology of Professional Judicial Knowledge (OPJK)

i-FAQ for judges (Iuriservice, second version)

Last version in OWL. Knowledge base in Protégé, highly structured


Domain Manual Spanish

Lame’s ontologies of French Codes

Legal information retrieval

NLP oriented (lexical), knowledge base, lexical, lightly structured


Domain Automated

French

Leary, Vanderverghe & Zeleznikow’s Financial Fraud Ontology

Ontology for representing financial fraud cases

Knowledge base (schema) in UML, lightly structured


Domain Manual English

Asaro et al.’s Italian Crime Ontology

Schema for representing crimes in Italian law



Domain Manual Italian

Boer, Hoekstra & Winkel’s CLIME Ontology

Legal advice system for maritime law

Knowledge base in Protégé and RDF, moderately structured

Reasoning and problem solving


Lehman, Breuker & Brouwer’s Legal Causation Ontology

Representation of causality in the legal domain

Knowledge base lightly structured

Understand a domain Domain Manual English

Delgado et al’s IPROnto (Intellectual Property Rights Ontology)

Integrating XML DTDs and Schemas that define Rights Expression Languages and Rights Data Dictionaries

Knowledge base: first version in DAML+OIL (2001), current version OWL (2008)

Interoperability between Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems


Teodoro, Binefa et al. e-Sentencias (Procedural Ontology for Multimedia in Courts)

Ontology for Representing Procedural Stages of Spanish Civil Hearings

RDF. Procedural Knowledge within Spanish Civil Hearings (typology)

Diarization and Content Classification of the Official Video Recordings (image and audio)


J. Saias, P. Quaresma, Portuguese Attorney Office Ontology

Ontology to semantically enriching legal texts

OWL and logic programming (ISCO and EVOLP)


Domain Automated

Portuguese

M.Klein, E.Uijttenbroek, A. Lodder, Laymen Ontology

Ontology to represent laymen knowledge on liability cases

OWL and NLP. Knowledge base in laymen natural language

Understand a domain (tort law) and interoperability between NL and legal concepts

Domain Semi-automa

ted

Dutch

J. Breuker, A. Elhag’sCrime.NL

Ontology of Dutch Criminal Law

OKBC Main structure of (Dutch) criminal law; for comparing European CL

Domain/General Manual Dutch/English

S Despres, S. SzulzmanMicro-ontology

Ontology to represent concepts in European Directives

OWL and NLP (TERMINAE method)

Understand a domain Domain Semi-automa

ted

French/English

UCC OntologyJ. Shaheed, A. Yip, J. Cunningham

Ontology to represent top-level concepts (e.g. ownership)

NML Top-level ontology based on NM


Domain (top -level)

Manual English

E.Schweighofer, D. Liebwald’sCLO (Comprehensive Legal Ontology)

Ontology for information management

Some frame representation General Manual with

support of legal

core ontologi

es

English?

E. Melz & A. Valente’s IRC ontology

Ontology of Internal Revenue Code (USA)

OWL Reasoning about tax cases


Asaro et al.’s Italian Crime Ontology

Schema for representing crimes in Italian law



Domain Manual Italian

Boer, Hoekstra & Winkel’s CLIME Ontology

Legal advice system for maritime law

Knowledge base in Protégé and RDF, moderately structured

Reasoning and problem solving


Lehman, Breuker & Brouwer’s Legal Causation Ontology

Representation of causality in the legal domain

Knowledge base lightly structured

Understand a domain Domain Manual English

Delgado et al’s IPROnto (Intellectual Property Rights Ontology)

Integrating XML DTDs and Schemas that define Rights Expression Languages and Rights Data Dictionaries

Knowledge base: first version in DAML+OIL (2001), current version OWL (2008)

Interoperability between Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems


Teodoro, Binefa et al. e-Sentencias (Procedural Ontology for Multimedia in Courts)

Ontology for Representing Procedural Stages of Spanish Civil Hearings

RDF. Procedural Knowledge within Spanish Civil Hearings (typology)

Diarization and Content Classification of the Official Video Recordings (image and audio)


J. Saias, P. Quaresma, Portuguese Attorney Office Ontology

Ontology to semantically enriching legal texts

OWL and logic programming (ISCO and EVOLP)


Domain Automated

Portuguese

M.Klein, E.Uijttenbroek, A. Lodder, Laymen Ontology

Ontology to represent laymen knowledge on liability cases

OWL and NLP. Knowledge base in laymen natural language

Understand a domain (tort law) and interoperability between NL and legal concepts

Domain Semi-automa

ted

Dutch

J. Breuker, A. Elhag’sCrime.NL

Ontology of Dutch Criminal Law

OKBC Main structure of (Dutch) criminal law; for comparing European CL

Domain/General Manual Dutch/English

S Despres, S. SzulzmanMicro-ontology

Ontology to represent concepts in European Directives

OWL and NLP (TERMINAE method)

Understand a domain Domain Semi-automa

ted

French/English

UCC OntologyJ. Shaheed, A. Yip, J. Cunningham

Ontology to represent top-level concepts (e.g. ownership)

NML Top-level ontology based on NM


Domain (top -level)

Manual English

E.Schweighofer, D. Liebwald’sCLO (Comprehensive Legal Ontology)

Ontology for information management

Some frame representation General Manual with

support of legal

core ontologi

es

English?

E. Melz & A. Valente’s IRC ontology

Ontology of Internal Revenue Code (USA)

OWL Reasoning about tax cases


Cognitive Modeling. C.W.Chang (2003)

Cognitive Modeling.C.W.Chang (2003)

Organización jerárquica por niveles

Fuente: Breuker et al.; in A. Gangemi, J. Breuker (2002: 29).

LKIF-Core-Ontology

Web Semántica(Web 3.0)

E. Motta and M. Sabou (2006-2007) identifican diversas características de la nueva generación de WS:

• (i) reusabilidad (vs. generación de datos semánticos)

• (ii) sistemas multi-ontológicos (vs. ontologías singulares)

• (iii) apertura a recursos semánticos de alto nivel (top-level resources)

Web Semántica (Web 3.0)

• (iv) la escalabilidad es tan importante como la calidad de los datos

• (v) apertura respecto a la Web (recursos no semánticos)

• (vi) asunción del paradigma interactivo de la Web 2.0

• (vii) apertura a los servicios Web.

GARTNER Hype Cycle for the implementation of a new technology(2006)

GARTNER Hype Cycle for Legal and Regulatory Information Governance,16 July 2007

Colin Rule (e-Bay): Square-trade• "If you have any doubt that consumers are moving to online

commerce, take a look at eBay, the online auction company. In the 13 years since it was founded, eBay has grown into the largest marketplace in the world. In the first half of 2008, there were more than one billion product listings added to eBay worldwide. At any given moment, there are more than 100 million listings around the world, and approximately 7.1 million listings are added each day. eBay users trade almost every kind of item imaginable, in more than 50,000 categories. On eBay, a pair of shoes sells every 7 seconds, a cell phone sells every 7 seconds, and a car sells every 56 seconds. The daily volume of trade on eBay is greater than the daily volume of the NASDAQ.

• Unsurprisingly, all of these transactions generate a lot of consumer disputes. Even though less than 1 percent of purchases generate a problem, the incredible volume on the site means eBay handles more than 40 million disputes a year, in more than 16 different languages”

Transformación del derecho: justicia relacional (Casanovas, 2009)

• “Relational Justice may be defined as the substantive and formal structure that allows end users, in the broader sense (as citizens, consumers, customers, clients, managers, officials…), to participate in the making of their own regulation and legal outcomes through all the mixed and plural strategies that the Semantic Web framework allows. This implies the coexistence of legal and social norms, rights and duties to be shared by subjects (artificial or natural agents) in a structured environment. Therefore, user centered strategies of the next SW generation fit into a middle-out legal approach in which there are rights to be protected and duties to be put in place. The expressive content of Web 2.0 may be shaped as well by the service-oriented motivation of the Web 3.0. “

Transformación del derecho II: derecho relacional (ibid.)

• “From a more traditional point of view, relational justice may be described as a subset of relational law. This is not a new concept, either in public or private law. Regulatory bonds through the emergence of a shared context are the base of several sociological descriptions (Macauley, 1963) and well-known classifications of contracts ―e.g. the notion of relational exchange norms (Macneil, 1985).”

Libro Blanco de la Mediación en Cataluña

• http://www.llibreblancmediacio.com

http://www.llibreblancmediacio.com/

1. Definició de mediació (en el vostre àmbit)

ODR

Internet

Web 2.0 Suite for ODR

Service Bus

Ontologies ODR Service Execution

ODR Service Definition

Management Tools

Storage

Citizens

ODR Web Platform

Environment Family Healthcare Administration …

Poblet & Casanovas (2008)

Retos• “Knowledge-acquisition bottleneck” (Feigenbaum, 1977)• Representación de conocimiento (e,g, los procesos judiciales y

su lenguaje no han sido descritos en detalle)• Construcción de ontologías jurídicas (una sola ontología

nuclear?) • Usuarios finales• Interoperabilidad semántica entre lenguajes, sistemas y con los

usuarios• Superación de obstáculos jurídicos y políticos • Adaptación del ciclo de vida de los sistemas al ritmo de

desarrollo de las instituciones

Añadir semántica al derecho significa….

• Comprender las transformaciones del mercado jurídico y de la sociedad (necesidades de la gente como usuarios de la Web)

• Estar atentos a las posibilidades de la nueva generación de aplicaciones de la WS (interoperatividad con el usuario, sea ciudadano o profesional)

• Enfrentarse a los viejos problemas, especialmente los de adquisición de conocimiento y construcción de ontologías

Más en…• R.V. Benjamins, P.Casanovas, J. Breuker, A.

Gangemi (eds.), Law and the Semantic Web, LNAI 3369, Springer, 2005.

• P. Casanovas, G.Sartor, N.Casellas, R.Rubino (eds.), Computable Models of the Law, LNAI 4884, Springer, 2008

• J. Breuker, P.Casanovas, M.Klein, E. Francesconi (eds.), Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web. Channelling the Legal Information Flood. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2009.

Eventos

• http://idt.uab.cat/icail2009/

• http://www.simposiummediacio.com/

• http://idt.uab.es/IVRXXIV-aicol09/

http://idt.uab.cat/icail2009/

http://www.simposiummediacio.com/

http://idt.uab.es/IVRXXIV-aicol09/

GRACIAS!

Pompeu Casanovas

Documents

Transcript of Pompeu Casanovas