Normative Case Study Template by qlo19181

VIEWS: 152 PAGES: 43

Normative Case Study Template document sample

More Info
									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:
       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)




 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
foundational (upper) physical                       mental                       social
ontology             concept                        concept                     concept
           physical      physical                mental
           process        object                 object
                                      content
                                                intention               role
           action       document       agent                  norm             organization


  legal core ontology
            legal         legal         legal                 legally             judicial
            action        code         person               valid norm judge   organization
                                                 normative
                                                   article

            crime      Dutch penal responsible       DPC                         criminal
  legal domain ontology: code        person         article           Is-a        court
  (Dutch) criminal law                                               Part-of

                                       Joost Breuker
                                    CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
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
       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
   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


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


                                   Joost Breuker
                                CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
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
       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
   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”
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



                                        move/f
                                        all
teapot                                  move/f
                                break   all
                                            move/f
                                            all
                      collide
ball
          move/f                           move/f
          all                              all



T-1                    T-2
                      Joost Breuker
                   CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
  the world of occurrences-4
  identifying processes
floor

               support
desk



                                              move/f
          support                             all
teapot                                        move/f
                                      break   all
                                                  move/f
                                                  all
                            collide
ball
           move/f                                move/f
           all                                   all


T-1                           T-2
                            Joost Breuker
                         CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
  the world of occurrences-5
  identifying causation
floor

               support
desk



                                              move/f
          support                             all
teapot                                        move/f
                                      break   all
                                                  move/f
                                                  all
                            collide
ball
           move/f                                move/f
           all                                   all




                            Joost Breuker
                         CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
  •the world of occurrences-6
  limiting causal effects…
                                  Why does the
floor
                                 desk not move?
               support
desk



                                              move/f
          support                             all
teapot                                        move/f
                                      break   all
                                                  move/f
                                                  all
                            collide
ball
           move/f                                move/f
           all                                   all




                            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                                          CASE
unrelated events/states                       related events/states
                                 DIRECT
    1       3       6                             7                6
                                                        5
        2       5                                                      3
4                   7                         4    1           2
                                              temporal order


                          ONTOLOGIES


                               LRI-Core


                               extensions



                             Joost Breuker
                          CORONT-WS/EKAW-04

								
To top