Joost Breuker

1
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

2
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

3
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
4
Overview

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

5
FOLaw (Functional Ontology forLaw) (Valente,
Breuker Brouwer, 99)
6
FOLaws 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

7
FOLaw normative reasoning
CASE
8
FOLaw causal reasoning
Who did what?
Who is to be blamed?
What has happened?
CASE
9
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

10
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

11

• Then the question iswhat is an ONTOLOGY ?

12
what is an ONTOLOGY ?

• Oh no!!!
• not that again

13
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 gt what we know
• me an ontology defines the terms used to
  describe and represent situations in the world

14
ontology of reasoning classes and its use in
specifying a p.s.m.
15
.as a CommonKADS inference structure reflecting
dependencies
16
OWL-S an ontology for web services
17
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

18
FOLaw (functional ontology) (Valente, Breuker
Brouwer, 99)
domain ontology
19
LRI-Core a clean core ontology for legal
domains

• Legal domain ontologies consist for gt 90 of
  common sense knowledge
• Recurring typical legal terms have still a strong
  common sense flavour (including terms for norms
  and legal responsibility)

20
LRI-core ontology for law including CRIME.NL
mental concept
social concept
physical concept
foundational (upper) ontology
physical object
physical process
mental object
content
intention
role
agent
norm
action
document
organization
legal core ontology
legal action
legally valid norm
legal person
legal code
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
21
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 --gt reality vs
  common sense
• naïve physics vs qualitative physics
• needed evidence from psychological research
• cognitive (development) psychology
• evolutionary psychology
• neuro-psychology
• anthropology

22
Major categories covered

• physical world
• life
• mental world
• roles ( social world)
• abstract world
• occurrences

23
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
  (lt-gt OntoClean)
• processes kinds of changes of objects
• movement as primary change
• no identity occur in events
• many processes occur persistently (e.g. gravity)
  (lt-gt DOLCE)
• classes/instances (events equilibrium states)

24
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)

25
and a very basic principle

• Persistency or occurrence is not a property of
  any class it is a property of individuals (life
  cycle)
• --gt no endurant/perdurant distinction (lt-gt DOLCE)

26
..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

27
five worlds of concepts

• physical world
• matter/energy --gt object and process
• life
• mental world
• metaphor
• intentional stance
• communication
• roles
• physical and social roles
• social organization
• abstract
• occurence

28
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

29
process and object
force
is-a
quantity
is-a
is-a
energy
heat
matter
substance
part-of
electricity
object
process
property
is-a
change
heat exchange
transfer
aggregation
movement
mass
transformation
radiation
form
change-of-value
change-of-substance
size
30
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

31
the mental world as ametaphor of the physical
world

• mappings
• energy --gt emotionmotivation
• matter/substance --gt thought/content
  (information)
• object ---gt mental-object (concept,)
• container ----gt mind, memory
• process ---gt mental-process (thinking,
  memorizing, )
• process --gt 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)

32
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

33
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

34
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)

35
where it all happensthe 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

36
the world of occurrences-1situation 1

• structural (topological) descriptions of objects
  in space

37
the world of occurrences-2situation 2

• inferred time between situation1 and situation2

38
the world of occurrences-3events states of
objects
floor
desk
teapot
ball
T-2
T-1
39
the world of occurrences-4identifying processes
floor
desk
teapot
ball
T-1
T-2
40
the world of occurrences-5identifying causation
floor
desk
teapot
ball
41
the world of occurrences-6limiting causal
effects
Why does the desk not move?
floor
desk
teapot
ball
42
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)

43
An experiment
CASE unrelated events/states
CASE related events/states
DIRECT
3
1
6
6
7
5
3
2
5
1
2
4
4
7
temporal order
ONTOLOGIES
LRI-Core
extensions