joost breuker coront-ws/ekaw-04 epistemology and ontology in core ontologies exemplified by folaw...
Post on 25-Dec-2015
220 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies
exemplified by FOLaw and LRI-Core, two core ontologies for law
Joost Breuker
Rinke Hoekstra
Leibniz Center for LawUniversity 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
“URI”
concepts
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’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: causal reasoning
What has happened?
Who did what? Who is to be blamed?
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
…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
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)
domainontology
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
mentalconcept
socialconcept
physicalconcept
physicalobject
physicalprocess
intention
mentalobject
agent normaction
legalaction
legalperson
legallyvalid norm
document
legalcode
role
crime Dutch penalcode
normativearticle
organization
judicialorganization
judge
responsibleperson
DPCarticle
criminalcourt
foundational (upper)foundational (upper)ontologyontology
legal core ontologylegal core ontology
legal domain ontology:legal domain ontology:(Dutch) criminal law(Dutch) criminal law
content
Is-aPart-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
energymatter
processobject
heat
electricity
force
property
substance
transfer
quantity
form
size
aggregation
transformationchange-of-value
is-a
change-of-substance
mass
change
is-a
is-a
is-a
part-of
heat exchange
radiationmovement
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 ametaphor 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-1situation 1
structural (topological) descriptions of objects in space
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
the world of occurrences-2situation 2
inferred: time between situation1 and situation2
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
the world of occurrences-3events & states of objects
desk
floor
teapot
ball
move/fall
move/fall
move/fall
move/fall
break
collide
move/fall
T-2T-1
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
the world of occurrences-4identifying processes
desk
floor
ball
move/fall
move/fall
move/fall
move/fall
break
collide
move/fall
T-2
support
support
teapot
T-1
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
the world of occurrences-5identifying causation
desk
floor
ball
move/fall
move/fall
move/fall
move/fall
break
collide
move/fall
support
support
teapot
Joost Breuker
CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
desk
floor
ball
move/fall
move/fall
move/fall
move/fall
break
collide
move/fall
support
support
teapot
Why does thedesk not move?
•the world of occurrences-6limiting causal effects…
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)
top related