slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies exemplified by FOLaw and LRI-Core , two core ontologies for law PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies exemplified by FOLaw and LRI-Core , two core ontologies for law

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 43

Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies exemplified by FOLaw and LRI-Core , two core ontologies for law - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 147 Views
  • Uploaded on

Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies exemplified by FOLaw and LRI-Core , two core ontologies for law. Joost Breuker Rinke Hoekstra Leibniz Center for Law University of Amsterdam. Leibniz (1647-1716).

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies exemplified by FOLaw and LRI-Core , two core ontologies for law' - liluye


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies exemplified by FOLaw and LRI-Core, two core ontologies for law

Joost Breuker

Rinke Hoekstra

Leibniz Center for Law

University of Amsterdam

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

leibniz 1647 1716
Leibniz (1647-1716)

“Once the characteristic numbers of most notions are determined, the human race will have a new kind of tool, a tool that will increase the power of the mind much more than optical lenses helped our eyes, a tool that will be as far superior to microscopes or telescopes as reason is to vision”

from: Philosophical Essays

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

leibniz on the slogan level defending ontologies
Leibniz on the slogan level defending ontologies?

“Once the characteristic numbers of most notions are determined, the human race will have a new kind of tool, a tool that will increase the power of the mind much more than optical lenses helped our eyes, a tool that will be as far superior to microscopes or telescopes as reason is to vision”

from: Philosophical Essays

concepts

“URI”

reasoning by

“ars combinatorix”

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

overview
Overview
  • FOLaw as a `functional’ core ontology for law
  • Epistemological promiscuity in ontologies
  • LRI-Core: a clean(er) ontology for legal domains

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

folaw functional ontology for law valente breuker brouwer 99
FOLaw (Functional Ontology forLaw) (Valente, Breuker & Brouwer, 99)

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

folaw s views
FOLaw’s views
  • Folaw does not follow the classical decomposition of legal domains in public/private law etc
  • Law as controlling social behaviour
  • Legal reasoning follows this pattern as if it it simulates the control model

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

folaw normative reasoning
FOLaw: normative reasoning

CASE

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

folaw causal reasoning
FOLaw: causal reasoning

Who did what?

Who is to be blamed?

What has happened?

CASE

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

experiences with using folaw
Experiences with using FOLaw
  • conceptual model for an architecture for legal reasoning (ON-LINE)
  • template for information retrieval and legal question answering in about 10 legal domains/ 4 european projects

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

however this is not an ontology
However, this is not an ontology….
  • This is an

EPISTEMOLOGICAL

FRAMEWORK

  • framework: structure of recurrent elements (= generic model)
  • epistemology: about valid reasoning
    • message from the 80-ies (eg CommonKADS, etc):

“separate the domain knowledge from the reasoning”

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

slide11
Then the question is:what is an ONTOLOGY ?

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

what is an ontology
what is an ONTOLOGY ?

Oh no!!!

not that again

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

an ontology is
…an ontology is?
  • `formal specification of conceptualization’ (Gruber 94)
    • applies to any modelling!
  • “An ontology defines the terms used to describe and represent an area of knowledge” (Jeff Heflin, OWL-Use cases)
  • ontology: ”the theory or study of being as such; i.e., of the basic characteristics of all reality.” (Encyclopedia Brittanica)
  • in AI: `what is’ ≈> what we know
  • me: an ontology defines the terms used to describe and represent situations in the world

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

as a commonkads inference structure reflecting dependencies
….as a CommonKADS inference structure reflecting dependencies

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

owl s an ontology for web services
OWL-S: an `ontology’ for web services

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

is mixing ontology with epistemology a problem
Is mixing ontology with epistemology a problem?
  • Yes:
    • It is not `clean’. They are reasoning frames by representing reasoning dependencies between types of knowledge (partitions of knowledge bases); not classes (= concept definitions)
    • They limit reuse and interoperability of knowledge
  • No:
    • Thin line between (functional) meaning and use of knowledge
    • OWL (and other KR formalisms) allow the expression of both
  • IMPORTANT: frameworks are highly useful in reuse
    • Library of Problem Solving Methods e.g. parametric configuration
    • Web services; OWL-S

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

folaw functional ontology valente breuker brouwer 99
FOLaw (functional ontology) (Valente, Breuker & Brouwer, 99)

domain

ontology

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

lri core a clean core ontology for legal domains
LRI-Core: a `clean’ core ontology for legal domains
  • Legal domain ontologies consist for > 90% of common sense knowledge
  • Recurring typical legal terms have still a strong common sense flavour (including terms for norms and legal responsibility)

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

lri core ontology for law including crime nl
LRI-core ontology for law including CRIME.NL

mental

concept

social

concept

foundational (upper)

ontology

physical

concept

physical

process

physical

object

mental

object

content

intention

role

action

document

agent

norm

organization

legal core ontology

legal

action

legally

valid norm

legal

code

legal

person

judicial

organization

judge

normative

article

Dutch penal

code

responsible

person

criminal

court

crime

DPC

article

legal domain ontology:

(Dutch) criminal law

Is-a

Part-of

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

common sense roots in foundation of lri core
Common sense roots in foundation of LRI-Core
  • legal domains cover common sense intuitions about the physical, mental and social world
  • common sense is invariably implicit, because shared
    • no `definitions’
    • `revisionary views’ in philosophy --> reality vs common sense
    • naïve physics vs qualitative physics
  • needed: `evidence’ from psychological research
      • cognitive (development) psychology
      • evolutionary psychology
      • neuro-psychology
      • …anthropology…

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

major categories covered
Major categories covered
  • physical world
  • life
  • mental world
  • roles (= social world)
  • abstract world
  • occurrences

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

principles from this view
Principles from this view
  • Common sense is explained by an evolutionary view
    • starting with animal `understanding’ and action
    • primacy of physical world
    • `domain specific inference engines’ (neural deficiencies)
  • Physical world: (re-)acting to physical change
    • objects: relatively static
      • classes/individuals/instances (entities)
      • individuals have identities; classes have not (<-> OntoClean)
    • processes: kinds of changes of objects
      • movement as primary change
      • no identity: occur in events…
      • many processes occur persistently (e.g. gravity) (<-> DOLCE)
      • classes/instances (events; equilibrium states)

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

some further principles
some further principles
  • humans vs/and other animals (mammals)
    • intentional stance
    • consciousness
    • natural language: manipulation of symbols representing
      • metaphors,
      • `reification’ (beliefs, etc.)
  • these all enable the development of worlds beyond the physical world
    • mental world as a metaphor of physical world
    • distinction between behavior and intended behavior
      • roles
    • creating abstract world (`form’) by metaphorizing `instincts’ about the physical world (eg: grasping entities of the same kind, counting, …) (Lakoff, 2002)

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

and a very basic principle
…and a very basic principle…

Persistency or occurrence is not a property of any class; it is a property of individuals (`life cycle’)

--> no endurant/perdurant distinction (<-> DOLCE)

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

however
..however…
  • we need terms to refer to occurrences
    • entities ((instances of) individual objects)
    • events and states of entities
    • situations and histories of entities
    • causation as the glue between events
  • on the canvas of space and time (a 4D view…)
    • spatial positions
    • temporal moments
    • ‘now’ appears to move by the arrow of time: existence of objects as trajectories in space/time

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

five worlds of concepts
five `worlds’ of concepts
  • physical world
    • matter/energy --> object and process
  • life
  • mental world
    • metaphor
    • intentional stance
    • communication
  • roles
    • physical and social roles
    • social organization
  • abstract
  • occurence

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

physical world
physical world
  • basic `natural’ concepts: energy & matter
  • basic defined concepts: physical object & process
    • both contain mixtures of energy & matter
    • processes are changes
      • transfer (changing positions)
      • changing value (quality; quantity)
      • transformation (changing type of process or object)
    • types of processes
      • mechanics: movement & support are core (cf senses & muscles)
      • thermo-dynamics: heat exchange
      • chemistry: mixing/changing substances

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

process and object
process and object

force

is-a

quantity

is-a

is-a

energy

heat

substance

matter

part-of

electricity

object

process

property

is-a

change

heat exchange

aggregation

transfer

movement

mass

radiation

transformation

form

change-of-substance

change-of-value

size

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

between death life and mind
Between death, life and mind
  • Biology/life:
    • Living physical objects: agents
    • Processes initiated by agents: actions
  • Actions are intended (goal oriented vs causal)
  • Awareness: communication actions (cf speech acts)
  • Self awareness: reflection
    • Control over reasoning
    • Modeling fellow agents
    • Modeling discourse

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

the mental world as a metaphor of the physical world
the mental world as ametaphor of the physical world
  • mappings:
    • energy --> emotion|motivation
    • matter/substance --> thought/content (information)
    • object ---> mental-object (concept,…)
      • container ----> mind, memory
    • process ---> mental-process (thinking, memorizing, …)
      • process --> action
  • mind/body `problem’:
    • person has mind; mind is container of mental entities
    • action: will as `force’
    • NB: this naïve view is incorrect! (Wenger, 2003)

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

roles
roles
  • distinguishing between
    • role and role taker: e.g. student - person
  • roles define complementary relations
    • speaker-hearer, student - teacher
    • these `complementary relations’ explain duty/rights relations in legal theories
  • roles are behavioural pre-scriptions
    • requirements for role taking (cf man taking `mother role’)
    • norms, prescriptions
  • role performance may be assessed against role
    • Bad cook, good cook, …
    • violating legal norm
  • social organization: part-of structure of roles

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

conclusions
Conclusions
  • A guideline: do not not mix (epistemological) frameworks with ontologies
  • Modelling common-sense cannot be done by consulting experts, but by
    • intuition & introspection :-(
    • empirical evidence from cognitive science
  • Legal domains cover the full range of common sense worlds
    • from the physical to the mental world
  • LRI-Core is under construction (OWL)…in a month a second release…

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

leibniz wilkins views on a conceptual language
Leibniz’/Wilkins views on a “conceptual language”

The “conceptual dictionary,” in which words are arranged in groups by their meaning, had its first important exponent in Bishop John Wilkins, whose Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language was published in 1668.

Analyzing the mind's contents, drawing up tables of categories of all simple and complex ideas, then assigning a symbol to each of these, one could, it was thought, obtain a language which, eliminating the mediation of words, would be free of the ambiguity and uncertainty of human languages.

(The Dictionary of the History of Ideas: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/DicHist/dict.html)

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

where it all happens the world of occurrences
where it all happens:the world of occurrences
  • “And in order to understand how common sense works, there is nothing better than imagining “stories” in which people behave according to its dictates.” (Ecco, 99)
  • (semi-)Platonic view: ideas/concepts make up our understanding of what happens in the real world:
    • understanding as constructing a model of a situation
    • episodic vs semantic memory (psychology)
    • Individuals vs Classes (A-Box/T-Box distinction)
    • time and space as the referential canvas of situations and events

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

the world of occurrences 1 situation 1
the world of occurrences-1situation 1
  • structural (topological) descriptions of objects in space

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

the world of occurrences 2 situation 2
the world of occurrences-2situation 2
  • inferred: time between situation1 and situation2

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

the world of occurrences 3 events states of objects
the world of occurrences-3events & states of objects

collide

break

move/fall

move/fall

move/fall

move/fall

move/fall

floor

desk

teapot

ball

T-1

T-2

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

the world of occurrences 4 identifying processes
the world of occurrences-4identifying processes

support

support

collide

break

move/fall

move/fall

move/fall

move/fall

move/fall

floor

desk

teapot

ball

T-1

T-2

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

the world of occurrences 5 identifying causation
the world of occurrences-5identifying causation

support

support

collide

break

move/fall

move/fall

move/fall

move/fall

move/fall

floor

desk

teapot

ball

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

the world of occurrences 6 limiting causal effects
the world of occurrences-6limiting causal effects…

support

support

collide

break

move/fall

move/fall

move/fall

move/fall

move/fall

Why does the

desk not move?

floor

desk

teapot

ball

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

summary
summary
  • identifying events by recognizing
    • changes, which
    • are viewed as instances of processes (-types) (cf causal-models, Pearl, 2000)
  • identifying causation (= causal relations between events)
    • identifying states as ongoing processes
    • what happens to the forces (heat, energy,…) that are the resources of processes (mental, qualitative simulation) (cf Michotte, 196x)

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

an experiment
An experiment

CASE

unrelated events/states

CASE

related events/states

DIRECT

1

3

6

7

6

5

3

2

5

4

1

2

4

7

temporal order

ONTOLOGIES

LRI-Core

extensions

Joost Breuker

CORONT-WS/EKAW-04