The process of constructing ontological meaning based on criminal law verbs

  1. Ángel Felices Lago 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Granada
    info

    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

Revista:
Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación

ISSN: 1576-4737

Año de publicación: 2016

Número: 65

Páginas: 109-148

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5209/REV_CLAC.2016.V65.51983 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación

Resumen

This study intends to account for the process involved in the construction of the conceptual meaning of verbs (#EVENTS) directly related to legal aspects of terrorism and organized crime based on the evidence provided by the Globalcrimeterm Corpus and the consistent application of specific criteria for term extraction. The selected 49 concepts have eventually been integrated in the Core Ontology of FunGramKB (Functional Grammar Knowledge Base), a knowledge base which is founded on the principles of deep semantics and is also aimed at the computational development of the Lexical Constructional Model (www.fungramkb.com). To achieve this purpose, key phases of the COHERENT methodology (Periñán Pascual & Mairal Usón 2011) are followed, particularly those which involve the modelling, subsumption and hierarchisation of the aforementioned verbal concepts. The final outcome of this research shows that most of the apparently specialised conceptual units should eventually be included in the Core Ontology instead of the specific Globalcrimeterm Subontology, due to the fact that the semantic content of their corresponding lexical units can be found in widely used learner`s dictionaries and, consequently, this conceptual information is not only shared by the experts in the field but also by the layperson and the average speaker of the language.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Allen, J. F. (1983). Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Communications of the ACM 26, (11), 832-843.
  • Allen, J. F. & Ferguson, G. (1994). Actions and events in interval temporal logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4 (5), 531-579.
  • Asaro, C. et al. (2003). A Domain Ontology: Italian Crime Ontology. In Proceedings of the ICAIL 2003 Workshop on Legal Ontologies & Web Based Legal Information Management, (pp. 1-7). (https://www.academia.edu/8305368/A_Domain_Ontology_Italian_Crime_Ontology)
  • Bender, E. (2009). Linguistically naïve != Language independent: why NLP needs linguistic typology. In Proceedings of the European Chapter of the ACL 2009 Workshop on the Interaction between Linguistics and Computational Linguistics (pp. 26-32). Association for computational linguistics.
  • (http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W09-0106)
  • Benjamins, V. R. et al. (2004). Ontologies of Professional Legal Knowledge as the Basis for Intelligent IT Support for Judges. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12 (4), 359-378.
  • Biber, D. (1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243-257.
  • Boer, A., Hoekstra, R. & Winkels, R. (2001). The CLIME Ontology. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Legal Ontolologies (pp. 37-47). Amsterdam: Jurix.
  • Bowker, L. & Pearson, J. (2002). Working with Specialized Language. A Practical Guide to Using Corpora. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Breuker, J. & Hoekstra (2004). Core concepts of law: taking common-sense seriously. In Proceedings of Formal Ontologies in Information Systems FOIS-2004 (pp. 210–221). Amsterdam: IOS-Press.
  • Breuker, J., Valente, A. & Winkels, R. (2005). Use and Reuse of Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Information Management. In V.R. Benjamins et al. (Eds.), Law and the Semantic Web (pp. 36-64). Berlin: Springer.
  • Breuker J., Casanovas, P., Klein, M.A.C. & Francesconi, E. (Eds.). (2008). Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  • Breuker, J. & Hoekstra, R. (2011). A cognitive science perspective on legal ontologies. In G. Sartor, P. Casanovas, M. A. Biasiotti & M.Fernández-Barrera (Eds.), Approaches to legal ontologies, theories, domains, methodologies (pp. 69-81). Berlin: Springer.
  • Cabré Castellví, M. T. (1999). Terminology. Theory, Methods and Applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Cabré Castellví, M. T. et al. (2004). The GENOMA-KB project: towards the integration of concepts, terms, textual corpora and entities. In Proceedings of the LREC 2004 (pp. 87-90). Lisbon: European Languages Resources Association.
  • Casanovas, P., Casellas, N. & Vallbé J.J. (2009). An ontology-based Decision Support System for Judges. In H. Breuker et al. (Eds.) Legal Ontologies and the Semantic Web. Channeling the Legal Information Flood (pp. 165-175). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  • Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Biasiotti, M.A. & Fernández Barrera, M. (2011). Theory and methodology in legal ontology engineering: Experiences and future directions. In G. Sartor, P. Casanovas, M. A. Biasiotti & M.Fernández-Barrera (Eds.), Approaches to legal ontologies, theories, domains, methodologies (pp. 3-14). Berlin: Springer.
  • Faber, P. (2002). ONCOTERM: sistema bilingüe de información y recursos oncológicos. In A. Alcina & S. Gamero (Eds.), La traducción científico-técnica y la terminología en la sociedad de la información (pp. 177-188). Castelló: Universitat Jaume I.
  • Faber, P. & Buendía Castro, M. (2014). EcoLexicon. In A. Abel, Ch. Vettori & N. Ralli (Eds.), Proceedings of the XVI EURALEX International Congress, (pp. 601–607). Bolzano: EURALEX.
  • Felices Lago, Á. & Ureña Gómez-Moreno, P. (2012). Fundamentos metodológicos de la creación subontológica en FunGramKB. Onomázein, 26/2, 49-67.
  • Felices Lago, Á. & Ureña Gómez-Moreno, P. (2014). FunGramKB Term Extractor: a key instrument for building a satellite ontology based on a specialized corpus. In B. Nolan & C. Periñán Pascual (Eds.), Language processing and grammars: The role of functionally oriented computational models (pp. 251-269). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Gangemi, A., Sagri, M. and Tiscornia, D. (2005). A Constructive Framework for Legal Ontologies. In V.R. Benjamins et al. (Eds.). Law and the Semantic Web (pp. 97-124). Berlin: Springer.
  • Gómez González-Jover, A. (2007). Léxico especializado y traducción. In E. Alcaraz Varó, J. Mateo Martínez & F. Yus Ramos (Eds.), Las lenguas profesionales y académicas (pp. 27–40. Barcelona: Ariel.
  • Gruber, Th. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199-220.
  • Hsieh, S. et al. (2010). Enabling the development of base domain ontology through extraction of knowledge from engineering domain handbooks. In Advanced Engineering Informatics. D.O.I.:10.1016/j.aei.2010.08.004.
  • Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.
  • Jiménez Briones, R. & Luzondo Oyón, A. (2011). Building ontological meaning in a lexico-conceptual knowledge base. Onomázein, 23, 11-40.
  • Kerremans, K., De Baer, P., Temmerman, R. (2007). Dealing with terminological variation in Termontography: examples from the “PoCeHRMOM”project. In Proceedings of the XVIth European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes (pp. 27–31).Hamburg: University of Hamburg.
  • Koester, A. (2010). Building small specialised corpora. In A. O’ Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp. 66-79). London: Routledge.
  • Kralingen, R.W. van (1995). Frame-based Conceptual Models of Statute Law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
  • Lame, G. (2002). Construction d’ontologie à partir de textes. Une ontologie de droit dédiée à la recherche d’information sur le Web. PhD dissertation, Ecole des mines de Paris, Paris. (http://www.cri.ensmp.fr/).
  • Leary, R.M., Vandenberghe, W. & Zeleznikow, J. (2004). Towards a financial fraud ontology: a legal modelling approach. In ICAIL 2003 Workshop on Legal Ontologies & Web based legal information management (pp. 1-33). (To unload it, go to Leibnizcenter.org).
  • Lenci, A. et al. (2000). SIMPLE: A general framework for the development of multilingual lexicon. International Journal of Lexicography, 13 (4), 249-263.
  • Lenci, A. (Ed.). (2008). From context to meaning: distributional models of the lexicon in linguistics and cognitive science. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 20/1.
  • Levin, B. & Rappaport, M.H. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • L’Homme, M-C. (2004). La terminologie: principes et techniques. Montreal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
  • L’Homme, M-C. (2006). Processing of Terms in Specialized Dictionaries: New Models and Technique. Special issue of Terminology 12:2 (2006). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Liebwald, D. (2007). Semantic Spaces and Multilingualism in the Law: The Challenge of Legal Knowledge Management. In LOAIT (pp. 131-148).
  • Mairal Usón, R. & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2008). New challenges for lexical representation within the Lexical-Constructional Model. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 57, 137-158.
  • Mairal Usón, R. & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Ch. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.) Deconstructing Constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Masolo, C. et al. (2003). WonderWeb Deliverable D18: Ontology Library. Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR. (http://wonderweb.man.ac.uk/deliverables/documents/D18.pdf)
  • Maurel, D. (2008). Prolexbase: A multilingual relational lexical database of proper names. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation,LREC 2008 (pp. 335-338). ELRA: Marrakech.
  • McCarty, L.T. (1989). A Language for Legal Discourse, I. Basic Features. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 180-189). New York: ACM.
  • Musen, M.A. (1992). Dimensions of knowledge sharing and reuse. Computers and Biomedical Research, 25, 435-467.
  • Niles, I. & Pease, A. (2001). Towards a standard Upper Ontology. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Ogunquit. (http://www.adampease.org/professional/FOIS.pdf)
  • Pedersen, B.S. & Keson, B. (1999). SIMPLE–Semantic information for multifunctional plurilingual lexica: some examples of Danish concrete nouns. Proceedings of the SIGLEX-99 Workshop. Maryland.
  • (http://clair.eecs.umich.edu/aan/paper.php?paper_id=W99-0507#pdf)
  • Periñán Pascual, C. (2012). The situated common-sense knowledge in FunGramKB. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 184-214.
  • Periñán Pascual, C. & Arcas Túnez, F. (2004). Meaning postulates in a lexico-conceptual knowledge base. Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Databases and Expert Systems Applications (pp. 38-42). Los Alamitos (California): IEEE.
  • Periñán Pascual, C. & Arcas Túnez, F. (2005). Microconceptual-Knowledge Spreading in FunGramKB. Proceedings of the 9th IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing (pp. 239-244). Anaheim-Calgary-Zurich: ACTA Press.
  • Periñán Pascual, C. & Arcas Túnez, F. (2007). Cognitive modules of an NLP knowledge base for language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 39, 197-204.
  • Periñán Pascual, C. & Arcas Túnez, F. (2010a). Ontological commitments in FunGramKB. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 44, 27-34.
  • Periñán Pascual, C. & Arcas Túnez, F. (2010b). The architecture of FunGramKB. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, European Language Resources Association (pp. 2667-2674). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
  • Periñán Pascual, C. & Arcas Túnez, F. (2014). La ingeniería del conocimiento en el dominio legal: La construcción de una Ontología Satélite en FunGramKB. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística, 47(84), 113-139.
  • Periñán Pascual, C. & Mairal Usón, R. (2010). La gramática de COREL. Un lenguaje de representación conceptual. Onomázein, 21, 11-45.
  • Periñán Pascual, C. & Mairal Usón, R. (2011). The COHERENT methodology in FunGramKB” Onomázein, 24, 13-33.
  • Procter, P. (Ed.) (1978). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
  • Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.
  • Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Mairal Usón, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42/2, 355-400.
  • Sartor, G., Casanovas, P., Biasiotti, M.A. & Fernández-Barrera, M. (Eds.), Approaches to legal ontologies, theories, domains, methodologies. Berlin: Springer.
  • Sowa, J. F. (2000). Ontology, metadata, and semiotics. In ). B. Gantery & G. Mineau (Eds.), Conceptual structures: logical, linguistics, and computational issues (pp. 55-81). Berlin: Springer.
  • Temmerman, R. (2000). Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. The Sociocognitive-Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Temmerman, R. & Kerremans, K. (2003). Termontography. Ontology building and the Sociocognitive Approach to terminology description. In Prague CIL17-conference. (http://www.hf.uib.no/forskerskole/temmerman_art_prague03.pdf.)
  • Ureña Gómez-Moreno, P., Alameda Hernández, Á. & Felices Lago, Á. (2011). Towards a specialised corpus of organized crime and terrorism. In M. L. Carrió et al. (Ed.), La investigación y la enseñanza aplicadas a las lenguas de especialidad y a la tecnología (pp. 301-306).Valencia: Universitat Politècnica.
  • Valente, A. (1995). Legal knowledge engineering: a modelling approach. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  • Valente, A. (2005). Types and Roles of Legal Ontologies. In V.R. Benjamins et al. (Eds.), Law and the Semantic Web (pp. 65-76). Berlin: Springer.
  • Valente, A. & Breuker, J. (1994). A functional view of law. In G. Bargellini and S. Binazzi, (eds.) Towards a global expert system in law. Padua: CEDAM Publishers.
  • Valente, A. & Breuker, J.(1999). Legal Modelling and Automated Reasoning with ONLINE. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51(6), 1079-1125.
  • Van Valin, R.D. Jr. (2005). The Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface: An Introduction to Role and Reference Grammar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Velardi, P., Pazienza, M.T. & Fasolo, M. (1991). How to encode semantic knowledge: a method for meaning representation and computer-aided acquisition. Computational Linguistics, 17/2, 153-170.
  • Vossen, P. (2003). Ontologies. In R. Mitkov (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics (pp. 464-482). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Zeleznikow, J. & Stranieri, A. (2001). An ontology for the construction of legal decision support systems. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Legal Ontologies (pp. 67-76)
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet