@inProceedings{
 title = {Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRI-Core, two core ontologies for law},
 type = {inProceedings},
 year = {2004},
 websites = {http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/},
 publisher = {CEUR},
 id = {2e7db80f-5869-3980-9b76-c554ec3dd3e0},
 created = {2011-03-10T12:48:45.000Z},
 file_attached = {false},
 profile_id = {d8f38c89-3cfb-38c8-96b8-ce565eef7803},
 last_modified = {2011-03-10T12:51:15.000Z},
 read = {false},
 starred = {false},
 authored = {true},
 confirmed = {true},
 hidden = {false},
 citation_key = {Breuker:04c},
 source_type = {inproceedings},
 abstract = {For more than a decade constructing ontologies for legal domains, 
we, 
at the Leibniz Center for Law, 
felt really the need to develop a core ontology for law that would enable us to re-use the common denominator of the various legal domains. In this paper we present two core ontologies for law. The first one was the result of a PhD thesis by [Valente, 
1995], 
called FOLaw. FOLaw speci- fies functional dependencies between types of knowledge involved in legal reasoning. Despite the fact that FOLaw was the starting point for a number of ontologies and legal reasoning systems in various (European) projects, 
it is rather an epistemological framework than a (core) ontology. We are not the only ones who easily confound epistemology with ontology. In the paper we present some examples and discuss whether this epistemological promiscuity in (core) ontology development is a serious problem. It is to some extent, 
as it limits the scope of re-use (if not leading to confusion). Therefore, 
we started about four years ago the development of a 'real' core-ontology for law based upon notions of common sense. The reason for a common-sense foundation is that domain independent concepts of law - the common denominator - are still tainted with a strong common-sense flavor. Moreover, 
domains of law refer to social activities which are generally governed by common-sense notions. This core ontology, 
called LRI-Core, 
consists of five major portions ('worlds'): physical, 
mental and abstract classes; roles and occurrences.},
 bibtype = {inProceedings},
 author = {Breuker, Joost and Hoekstra, Rinke},
 booktitle = {Proceedings of EKAW Workshop on Core ontologies}
}

{"_id":"sXgoDEjKLeXzQ87pB","bibbaseid":"breuker-hoekstra-epistemologyandontologyincoreontologiesfolawandlricoretwocoreontologiesforlaw-2004","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2015-09-28T14:33:01.868Z","title":"Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRI-Core, two core ontologies for law","author_short":["Breuker, J.","Hoekstra, R."],"year":2004,"bibtype":"inProceedings","biburl":null,"bibdata":{"title":"Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRI-Core, two core ontologies for law","type":"inProceedings","year":"2004","websites":"http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/","publisher":"CEUR","id":"2e7db80f-5869-3980-9b76-c554ec3dd3e0","created":"2011-03-10T12:48:45.000Z","file_attached":false,"profile_id":"d8f38c89-3cfb-38c8-96b8-ce565eef7803","last_modified":"2011-03-10T12:51:15.000Z","read":false,"starred":false,"authored":"true","confirmed":"true","hidden":false,"citation_key":"Breuker:04c","source_type":"inproceedings","abstract":"For more than a decade constructing ontologies for legal domains, \nwe, \nat the Leibniz Center for Law, \nfelt really the need to develop a core ontology for law that would enable us to re-use the common denominator of the various legal domains. In this paper we present two core ontologies for law. The first one was the result of a PhD thesis by [Valente, \n1995], \ncalled FOLaw. FOLaw speci- fies functional dependencies between types of knowledge involved in legal reasoning. Despite the fact that FOLaw was the starting point for a number of ontologies and legal reasoning systems in various (European) projects, \nit is rather an epistemological framework than a (core) ontology. We are not the only ones who easily confound epistemology with ontology. In the paper we present some examples and discuss whether this epistemological promiscuity in (core) ontology development is a serious problem. It is to some extent, \nas it limits the scope of re-use (if not leading to confusion). Therefore, \nwe started about four years ago the development of a 'real' core-ontology for law based upon notions of common sense. The reason for a common-sense foundation is that domain independent concepts of law - the common denominator - are still tainted with a strong common-sense flavor. Moreover, \ndomains of law refer to social activities which are generally governed by common-sense notions. This core ontology, \ncalled LRI-Core, \nconsists of five major portions ('worlds'): physical, \nmental and abstract classes; roles and occurrences.","bibtype":"inProceedings","author":"Breuker, Joost and Hoekstra, Rinke","booktitle":"Proceedings of EKAW Workshop on Core ontologies","bibtex":"@inProceedings{\n title = {Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRI-Core, two core ontologies for law},\n type = {inProceedings},\n year = {2004},\n websites = {http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/},\n publisher = {CEUR},\n id = {2e7db80f-5869-3980-9b76-c554ec3dd3e0},\n created = {2011-03-10T12:48:45.000Z},\n file_attached = {false},\n profile_id = {d8f38c89-3cfb-38c8-96b8-ce565eef7803},\n last_modified = {2011-03-10T12:51:15.000Z},\n read = {false},\n starred = {false},\n authored = {true},\n confirmed = {true},\n hidden = {false},\n citation_key = {Breuker:04c},\n source_type = {inproceedings},\n abstract = {For more than a decade constructing ontologies for legal domains, \nwe, \nat the Leibniz Center for Law, \nfelt really the need to develop a core ontology for law that would enable us to re-use the common denominator of the various legal domains. In this paper we present two core ontologies for law. The first one was the result of a PhD thesis by [Valente, \n1995], \ncalled FOLaw. FOLaw speci- fies functional dependencies between types of knowledge involved in legal reasoning. Despite the fact that FOLaw was the starting point for a number of ontologies and legal reasoning systems in various (European) projects, \nit is rather an epistemological framework than a (core) ontology. We are not the only ones who easily confound epistemology with ontology. In the paper we present some examples and discuss whether this epistemological promiscuity in (core) ontology development is a serious problem. It is to some extent, \nas it limits the scope of re-use (if not leading to confusion). Therefore, \nwe started about four years ago the development of a 'real' core-ontology for law based upon notions of common sense. The reason for a common-sense foundation is that domain independent concepts of law - the common denominator - are still tainted with a strong common-sense flavor. Moreover, \ndomains of law refer to social activities which are generally governed by common-sense notions. This core ontology, \ncalled LRI-Core, \nconsists of five major portions ('worlds'): physical, \nmental and abstract classes; roles and occurrences.},\n bibtype = {inProceedings},\n author = {Breuker, Joost and Hoekstra, Rinke},\n booktitle = {Proceedings of EKAW Workshop on Core ontologies}\n}","author_short":["Breuker, J.","Hoekstra, R."],"bibbaseid":"breuker-hoekstra-epistemologyandontologyincoreontologiesfolawandlricoretwocoreontologiesforlaw-2004","role":"author","urls":{},"downloads":0},"search_terms":["epistemology","ontology","core","ontologies","folaw","lri","core","two","core","ontologies","law","breuker","hoekstra"],"keywords":[],"authorIDs":[]}