An architecture for scaling ontology networks

Constructing ontology networks typically occurs at design time at the hands of knowledge engineers who assemble their components statically. There are, however, use cases where ontology networks need to be assembled upon request and processed at runtime, without altering the stored ontologies and without tampering with one another. These are what we call "virtual [ontology] networks", and keeping track of how an ontology changes in each virtual network is called "multiplexing". Issues may arise from the connectivity of ontology networks. In many cases, simple flat import schemes will not work, because many ontology managers can cause property assertions to be erroneously interpreted as annotations and ignored by reasoners. Also, multiple virtual networks should optimize their cumulative memory footprint, and where they cannot, this should occur for very limited periods of time. We claim that these problems should be handled by the software that serves these ontology networks, rather than by ontology engineering methodologies. We propose a method that spreads multiple virtual networks across a 3-tier structure, and can reduce the amount of erroneously interpreted axioms, under certain raw statement distributions across the ontologies. We assumed OWL as the core language handled by semantic applications in the framework at hand, due to the greater availability of reasoners and rule engines. We also verified that, in common OWL ontology management software, OWL axiom interpretation occurs in the worst case scenario of pre-order visit. To measure the effectiveness and space-efficiency of our solution, a Java and RESTful implementation was produced within an Apache project. We verified that a 3-tier structure can accommodate reasonably complex ontology networks better, in terms of the expressivity OWL axiom interpretation, than flat-tree import schemes can. We measured both the memory overhead of the additional components we put on top of traditional ontology networks, and the framework's caching capabilities.

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.