A Comparison of a Regulatory Ontology with Existing Legal Ontology Frameworks

Author(s):  
John Kingston ◽  
Wim Vandenberghe
Keyword(s):  
2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-140
Author(s):  
Ga-Rim PARK ◽  
Seung-Won CHOI
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Laurent de Sutter

Giorgio Agamben’s celebrated research in the field of legal ontology has led him to devise a distinction between an ontology of being and an ontology of command—two traditions he divided that Western philosophy has always presented as united. But, behind this division and the supersedence of one ontology over the other, Agamben has himself fallen into the trap he wanted to avoid and actually given back to philosophy what it wanted to take from law but had always been a part of philosophy. Another path should be chosen: a path away from “being” as well as “ought-to-be”—the path of maybe. This is what this chapter will argue.


2010 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pompeu Casanovas ◽  
Giovanni Sartor ◽  
Maria Angela Biasiotti ◽  
Meritxell Fernández-Barrera

Author(s):  
Erich Schweighoferf

Legal reasoning is still insufficiently understood. Formalisations of legal reasoning have failed so far, due in particular to the non-consideration of societal and legal complexity. Thus, the network of co-operative reasoning and its compilation and analysis should be represented by an index of legal and fact concepts of a legal ontology. The Dynamic Electronic Legal Commentary (DynELCom) constitutes such a semantic description and analysis of the legal information system. Knowledge acquisition tools support the establishment and refinement of the extensive ontology. Since a first ontology exists in European law, international law and Austrian law, this chapter also presents early experiments on EU state aid law which show the feasibility of the approach. Next steps will be a deep refinement of the ontology and the development of a dialogue system.


2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vi-sit Boonchom ◽  
Nuanwan Soonthornphisaj

Ontology plays an important role in knowledge representation, especially in the domain of information retrieval. However, building ontology remains a challenging problem because it is a time-consuming task for experts. To overcome these drawbacks, we propose a novel approach called the Automatic Thai Legal Ontology Building (ATOB) algorithm for automatic legal ontology building and to improve the court sentences retrieval process. The ATOB can automatically generate seed ontology and expand the ontology using Thai legal terminology, i.e. TLlexicon. The expansion process is terminated automatically by the threshold parameter. Moreover, the ATOB applies the concept of the ant colony algorithm to improve the court sentences retrieval process. We conclude that the effective ontology should be weight-embedded. The empirical results demonstrate that the performance of the ATOB algorithm is better than that of the traditional search method. The performance figures for the ATOB framework measured in terms of precision, recall, F-measure and diversity are 0.90, 0.91, 0.90 and 0.39, respectively.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document