Interpreting Judgements using Knowledge Representation Methods and Computational Models of Argument

The goal of the present research is to define a Semantic Web framework for precedent modelling, by using knowledge extracted from text, metadata, and rules, while maintaining a strong text-to-knowledge morphism between legal text and legal concepts, in order to fill the gap between legal document and its semantics. The framework is composed of four different models that make use of standard languages from the Semantic Web stack of technologies: a document metadata structure, modelling the main parts of a judgement, and creating a bridge between a text and its semantic annotations of legal concepts; a legal core ontology, modelling abstract legal concepts and institutions contained in a rule of law; a legal domain ontology, modelling the main legal concepts in a specific domain concerned by case-law; an argumentation system, modelling the structure of argumentation. The input to the framework includes metadata associated with judicial concepts, and an ontology library representing the structure of case-law. The research relies on the previous efforts of the community in the field of legal knowledge representation and rule interchange for applications in the legal domain, in order to apply the theory to a set of real legal documents, stressing the OWL axioms definitions as much as possible in order to enable them to provide a semantically powerful representation of the legal document and a solid ground for an argumentation system using a defeasible subset of predicate logics. It appears that some new features of OWL2 unlock useful reasoning features for legal knowledge, especially if combined with defeasible rules and argumentation schemes. The main task is thus to formalize legal concepts and argumentation patterns contained in a judgement, with the following requirement: to check, validate and reuse the discourse of a judge - and the argumentation he produces - as expressed by the judicial text.

Structural patterns for document engineering: from an empirical bottom-up analysis to an ontological theory

This thesis aims at investigating a new approach to document analysis based on the idea of structural patterns in XML vocabularies. My work is founded on the belief that authors do naturally converge to a reasonable use of markup languages and that extreme, yet valid instances are rare and limited. Actual documents, therefore, may be used to derive classes of elements (patterns) persisting across documents and distilling the conceptualization of the documents and their components, and may give ground for automatic tools and services that rely on no background information (such as schemas) at all. The central part of my work consists in introducing from the ground up a formal theory of eight structural patterns (with three sub-patterns) that are able to express the logical organization of any XML document, and verifying their identifiability in a number of different vocabularies. This model is characterized by and validated against three main dimensions: terseness (i.e. the ability to represent the structure of a document with a small number of objects and composition rules), coverage (i.e. the ability to capture any possible situation in any document) and expressiveness (i.e. the ability to make explicit the semantics of structures, relations and dependencies). An algorithm for the automatic recognition of structural patterns is then presented, together with an evaluation of the results of a test performed on a set of more than 1100 documents from eight very different vocabularies. This language-independent analysis confirms the ability of patterns to capture and summarize the guidelines used by the authors in their everyday practice. Finally, I present some systems that work directly on the pattern-based representation of documents. The ability of these tools to cover very different situations and contexts confirms the effectiveness of the model.