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)
“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?
“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



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)
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
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
CASE
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
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


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….

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
Then the question is:
what is an ONTOLOGY
?
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
what is an ONTOLOGY ?
Oh no!!!
not that again
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
…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
ontology of reasoning classes and
its use in specifying a p.s.m.
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
….as a CommonKADS inference
structure reflecting dependencies
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
OWL-S: an `ontology’ for web
services
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
Is mixing ontology with
epistemology a problem?

Yes:



No:



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
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)
domain
ontology
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
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
mental
concept
foundational (upper) physical
ontology
concept
physical
process
physical
object
mental
object
content
intention
action
document
agent
legal
code
legal
person
social
concept
role
norm
organization
legal core ontology
legal
action
legally
valid norm judge
judicial
organization
normative
article
Dutch penal responsible
crime
person
legal domain ontology: code
(Dutch) criminal law
DPC
article
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
Is-a
Part-of
criminal
court
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

physical world
life
mental world
roles (= social world)
abstract world

occurrences




Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
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


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…
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…

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

physical world



life
mental world






metaphor
intentional stance
communication
roles


matter/energy --> object and process
physical and social roles
social organization
abstract
occurence
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
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
substance
matter
is-a
quantity
is-a
is-a energy
heat
part-of
object
property
electricity
process
is-a
heat exchange
movement
radiation
change-of-substance
aggregation
mass
form
force
size
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
change
transfer
transformation
change-of-value
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

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

distinguishing between


roles define complementary relations




requirements for role taking (cf man taking `mother role’)
norms, prescriptions
role performance may be assessed against role



speaker-hearer, student - teacher
these `complementary relations’ explain duty/rights relations in
legal theories
roles are behavioural pre-scriptions


role and role taker: e.g. student - person
Bad cook, good cook, …
violating legal norm
social organization: part-of structure of roles
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
Conclusions


A guideline: do not not mix (epistemological)
frameworks with ontologies
Modelling common-sense cannot be done by consulting
experts, but by



Legal domains cover the full range of common sense
worlds


intuition & introspection :-(
empirical evidence from cognitive science
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”
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

“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

structural (topological) descriptions of objects in space
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
the world of occurrences-2
situation 2

inferred: time between situation1 and situation2
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
the world of occurrences-3
events & states of objects
floor
desk
teapot
break
move/fa
ll
move/fa
ll
move/fa
ll
collide
ball
T-1
move/fa
ll
move/fa
ll
T-2
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
the world of occurrences-4
identifying processes
floor
desk
support
support
teapot
break
move/fa
ll
move/fa
ll
move/fa
ll
collide
ball
T-1
move/fa
ll
move/fa
ll
T-2
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
the world of occurrences-5
identifying causation
floor
desk
support
support
teapot
break
move/fa
ll
move/fa
ll
move/fa
ll
collide
ball
move/fa
ll
move/fa
ll
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
•the world of occurrences-6
limiting causal effects…
Why does the
desk not move?
floor
desk
support
support
teapot
break
move/fa
ll
move/fa
ll
move/fa
ll
collide
ball
move/fa
ll
move/fa
ll
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
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
CASE
unrelated events/states
1
3
2
4
6
CASE
related events/states
DIRECT
5
7
4
7
1
temporal order
ONTOLOGIES
LRI-Core
extensions
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
6
5
3
2