Using ontologies for comparing and harmonizing legislation

ABSTRACT

In the last decades the interst in the problem of comparing and harmonizing legislation has been steadily increasing. One reason is the increasing legal convergence between governments in the European Union, and the increasing traffic of people over borders of jurisdictions. Another reason is the increasing globalization of companies; Products and services are offered in many jurisdictions at the same time, and the product or service has to meet the provisions of all jurisdictions in which it is offered. In the E-POWER project relevant tax legislation and business processes are modeled in UML to improve the speed and efficiency with which the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration can implement decision support systems for internal use and for its clients. These conceptual models have also proven their usefulness for efficient and effective analysis of draft legislation. We are currently researching whether conceptual modeling can also be used to compare 'similar' legislation from different jurisdictions to improve the capacity of the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration to react to future consequences of increased movement of people, products, and money between EU member states and increased harmonization between tax authorities in Europe. In addition, addressing the problem of comparing models is also expected to improve our methodology for modeling legislation. This paper discusses problems and requirements of comparing legislation as we understand them now, and attempts to relate them to relevant research.

REFERENCES

• 1: T. Bench-Capon and G. Sartor. Using values and theories to resolve disagreement in law. In J. Breuker, R. Leenes, and R. Winkels, editors, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX-2000), Amsterdam, 2000. IOS Press. ISBN 1.58603.144.9.
• 2: T. J. M. Bench-Capon, Deep models, normative reasoning and legal expert systems, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.37-45, May 1989, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/74014.74020]
• 3: A. Boer. The Consultancy Game. In J. Breuker, R. Leenes, and R. Winkels, editors, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX-2000), pages 99--112, Amsterdam, 2000. IOS Press.
• 4: Alexander Boer, MILE Assessment: Turning Legal Information into Legal Advice, Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, p.787-791, September 03-07, 2001
• 5: A. Boer, R. Hoekstra, and R. Winkels, METALex: Legislation in XML. In A. D. T. Bench-Capon and R. Winkels, editors, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference., pages 1--10, Amsterdam, 2002. IOS Press.
• 6: D. Calvanese, G. D. Giacomo, and M. Lenzerini. A framework for ontology integration. In Proceedings of the First Semantic Web Working Symposium, pages 303--316, 2001.
• 7: N. den Haan and J. Breuker. Constructing Normative Rules. In Proceedings of JURIX'96, pages 135--147, 1996.
• 8: J. Doyle and M. P. Wellman. Representing preference as ceteris paribus comparatives. In Decision-Theoretic Planning: Papers from the 1994 Spring AAAI Symposium, pages 69--75. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California, 1994.
• 9: E. Engelen. Financialization, Pension Restructuring, and the Logic of Funding. In Proceeedings of SASE 2002, 2002.
• 10: Aldo Gangemi , Nicola Guarino , Claudio Masolo , Alessandro Oltramari , Luc Schneider, Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. Ontologies and the Semantic Web, p.166-181, October 01-04, 2002
• 11: A. Gangemi, D. M. Pisanelli, and G. Steve. A formal Ontology Framework to Represent Norm Dynamics. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Legal Ontologies (LEGONT), 2001.
• 12: W. Hettich and S. L. Winer. Economic and political foundations of tax structure. American Economic Review, 78(4):701--712, 1988.
• 13: W. Hettich and S. L. Winer. Rules, Politics, and the Normative Analysis of Taxation. Carleton Economic Papers 00--12, Carleton University, 2000.
• 14: Ian Horrocks , Sergio Tessaris, A Conjunctive Query Language for Description Logic Aboxes, Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Twelfth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, p.399-404, July 30-August 03, 2000
• 15: M. Kohen. Europe and the Standardization of the Law: Past and Present. In Proceedings of the Conference on Globalisation and International Relations in the 21st Century, 2002.
• 16: M. Muller. The RDF Dictionary and the standardisation process in the legal domain. In Proceedings of XML Europe, 2002.
• 17: Luigi Palopoli , Fiora Pirri , Clara Pizzuti, Algorithms for selective enumeration of prime implicants, Artificial Intelligence, v.111 n.1-2, p.41-72, July 1999 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00035-1]
• 18: H. Pinto, A. Prez, and J. Martins. Some issues on ontology integration. In Proceedings of the IJCAI-99 Workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods (KRR5), 1999.
• 19: Edwina L. Rissland , M. Timur Friedman, Detecting change in legal concepts, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.127-136, May 21-24, 1995, College Park, Maryland, United States [doi>10.1145/222092.222209]
• 20: S. Spreeuwenberg, T. van Engers, and R. Gerrits. The Role of Verification in Improving the Quality of Legal Decisionmaking. In B. Verheij, A. Lodder, R. Loui, and A. Muntjewerff, editors, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX-2001), pages 1--16, Amsterdam, 2001. IOS Press. ISBN 1.58603.201.1.
• 21: Janell Straach , Klaus Truemper, Learning to ask relevant questions, Artificial Intelligence, v.111 n.1-2, p.301-327, July 1999 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00037-5]
• 22: A. Valente. Legal Knowledge Engineering: A Modeling Approach. PhD thesis, Amsterdam, 1995.
• 23: André Valente , Joost Breuker, ON-LINE: an architecture for modelling legal information, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.307-315, May 21-24, 1995, College Park, Maryland, United States [doi>10.1145/222092.222265]
• 24: L. W. N. van der Torre and Y.-H. Tan. Contextual deontic logic. In P. Bonzon, M. Cavalcanti, and R. Nossum, editors, Formal Aspects of Context, pages 143--160. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2000.
• 25: C. van Laer. The Applicability of Comparative Concepts. European Journal of Comparative Law, 2.2, 1998.
• 26: R. Winkels , D. J. B. Bosscher , A. W. F. Boer , J. A. Breuker, Generating exception structures for legal information serving, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.182-189, June 14-17, 1999, Oslo, Norway [doi>10.1145/323706.323793]