Computational ontologies for normative reasoning

Notes

3.1 LKIF

NOTER_PAGE: (7 . 0.10883797054009821)

the LKIF core ontology is a library of ontologies relevant for the legal domain.

NOTER_PAGE: (7 . 0.22831423895253683)

Role: understanding the domain (core ontology), but also interoperability between existing legal knowledge systems (it is the general purpose of the system inside which LKIF is located)

NOTER_PAGE: (8 . 0.7561374795417349)

LKIF models the notion of equivalence between the Obligation and Prohibition concepts

NOTER_PAGE: (12 . 0.19312602291325698)

LKIF models the situations the norms applies to. So the definition of a Permission/Prohibition/Obligation goes hand-in- hand with the definition of the situation it permits/prohibits/obliges.

NOTER_PAGE: (12 . 0.353518821603928)

This seems bad, I think. Ought to be agnostic

3.2 ODRL

NOTER_PAGE: (12 . 0.524390243902439)

3.3: L4LOD

NOTER_PAGE: (17 . 0.2934451219512195)

3.4 LegalRuleML

NOTER_PAGE: (19 . 0.29573170731707316)

Note that the work described later in this paper was based on LegalRuleML, so it seems the authors like it

LegalRuleML takes inspiration from LKIF

NOTER_PAGE: (19 . 0.3673780487804878)

LegalRuleML [6] has key features which do not appear in other ontologies such as LKIF:

NOTER_PAGE: (19 . 0.8460365853658537)

Section 5: MIREL-specific achievements

NOTER_PAGE: (25 . 0.4091653027823241)

5.1 Normative Requirements as Linked Data

NOTER_PAGE: (25 . 0.59328968903437)

5.2 European Legal Taxonomy Syllabus

NOTER_PAGE: (33 . 0.4026186579378069)