Transcript Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies - CEUR
Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies exemplified by FOLaw and LRI-Core, two core ontologies for law
Joost Breuker Rinke Hoekstra Leibniz Center for Law University 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 concepts “URI” 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 (Functional Ontology for Law)
(Valente, Breuker & Brouwer, 99) 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: normative reasoning CASE
Joost Breuker CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
FOLaw: causal reasoning Who did what?
What has happened?
CASE Who is to be blamed?
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
Then the question is: what is an ONTOLOGY ?
Joost Breuker CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
what is an ONTOLOGY ?
Oh no!!!
not that again 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
ontology of reasoning classes and its use in specifying a p.s.m.
Joost Breuker CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
….as a CommonKADS inference structure reflecting dependencies
Joost Breuker CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
OWL S: an `ontology’ for web services
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)
domain ontology
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
foundational (upper) ontology
physical concept physical process physical object action document content mental concept mental object intention agent norm role social concept organization
legal core ontology
legal action legal code legal person crime Dutch penal
legal domain ontology:
code
(Dutch) criminal law
responsible person legally valid norm judge judicial organization normative article DPC article
Is-a Part-of
criminal court 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
situations and histories of entities causation as the glue between events on the canvas of space and time (a 4D view…) entities ((instances of) individual objects) events and states of entities 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
force
is-a
substance quantity matter
is-a part-of is-a
energy heat electricity
property
object aggregation mass form process
is-a
heat exchange movement radiation change-of-substance
change
transfer transformation change-of-value size 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 a metaphor 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-1 situation 1
structural (topological) descriptions of objects in space Joost Breuker CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
the world of occurrences-2 situation 2
inferred: time between situation1 and situation2 Joost Breuker CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
the world of occurrences-3 events & states of objects
floor desk teapot ball
T-1
move/fa ll collide break move/fa ll move/fa ll move/fa ll move/fa ll
T-2
Joost Breuker CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
the world of occurrences-4 identifying processes
floor desk support teapot ball
T-1
support move/fa ll collide break move/fa ll move/fa ll move/fa ll move/fa ll
T-2
Joost Breuker CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
the world of occurrences-5 identifying causation
floor desk support teapot ball support move/fa ll collide break move/fa ll move/fa ll move/fa ll move/fa ll Joost Breuker CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
•
the world of occurrences-6 limiting causal effects…
floor Why does the desk not move?
support desk teapot ball support move/fa ll collide break move/fa ll move/fa ll move/fa ll move/fa ll 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) Joost Breuker CORONT-WS/EKAW-04
An experiment
CASE unrelated events/states 6 4 1 2 3 5 7
DIRECT
ONTOLOGIES
LRI-Core
extensions Joost Breuker CORONT-WS/EKAW-04 CASE related events/states 7 6 5 3 4 1 temporal order 2