A Digital Preservation-Legal Ontology

Marzieh Bakhshandeh

1,2

, Barbara Kolany-Raiser

, Gonc¸alo Antunes

1,2

Silviya-Aleksandrova Yankova

, Artur Caetano

1,2

and Jos

e Borbinha

1,2

Instituto Superior T

ecnico, University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

Information Systems Group, INESC-ID, Rua Alves Redol 9, 1000-029 Lisboa, Portugal

Institut for Information, Telecommunication and Media Law (ITM), Muenster, Germany

Keywords:

Digital Preservation, Ontology, Legal Ontology, OWL, Business Process.

Abstract:

Digital preservation has the goal of ensuring long-term access to data, enabling future users not only to beneﬁt

from today’s knowledge, but also to reuse such knowledge. Therefore, the digital preservation of a business

process has the aim of enabling the use of the preserved process data so that its re-execution is possible. Law

is becoming an essential application domain for technology developments, such as digital preservation. For

instance, the digital preservation of copyright protected data might infringe the exclusive rights of the copyright

holder. However, problems with the legal domain can arise since DP users and law-makers do not share the

same perspective and concepts. Ontologies can be used to improve communication and shared understanding,

giving rise to greater reuse, sharing, transparency, and interoperability. This paper presents a legal ontology

that provides a hierarchical overview of how legal constraints and obligations (e.g. IP rights and licensing

issues) could be enforced automatically in DP systems. The correctness of our legal ontology is validated with

a set of competency questions deﬁned in a speciﬁc case study. The aim is to obtain a clearer taxonomical view

of the necessary legal knowledge that will address the concerns of industrial use-case DP stakeholders.

1 INTRODUCTION

Digital Preservation (DP) can be considered an imper-

ative challenge for the information society (Chanod

et al., 2010). The need for preservation has been rec-

ognized for quite some time, especially by scientiﬁc

and cultural heritage institutions (Brunsmann et al.,

2012). A novel approach closest to the business do-

main has been introduced by the EU project TIM-

BUS

which seeks to leverage this expertise pool to

implement solutions capable of preserving dynamic

digital objects, such as business processes and ser-

vices (Edelstein et al., 2011). As such, efforts are

being put into describing whole processes and captur-

ing their complete inter-dependencies and constituent

components, along with their conﬁgurations, in order

to be be able to re-deploy and re-execute them in the

future (Strodl et al., 2013). An inseparable element of

every DP activity is ensuring the authenticity and le-

gitimacy of the performed actions and processes (Ma

et al., 2009).

The need for addressing legal issues and obliga-

http://timbusproject.net/

tions in the DP domain is manifest: almost every pro-

cess of a DP system may infringe a right, among other

legal requirements and constraints, e.g. contracting

issues and licensing (Hoeren et al., 2013). An on-

tological approach to organize legal information and

requirements could help with the legal perspectives

and concerns making it a pivotal element of any DP

system. Therefore, a taxonomy in the form of an on-

tology can be instantiated to form a knowledge-base,

which would then allow a DP expert to acquire and

express inferred legal knowledge through the contents

of the ontology.

Such ontology would be a beneﬁcial source of hi-

erarchical knowledge to the experts and stakehold-

ers, particularly in the DP domain that has an in-

herent and inseparable legal-compliance element to

it. It is, also, noteworthy that ontologies facilitate

knowledge engineering, knowledge extraction, and

consistency/conformity checking (Burger and Sim-

perl, 2008). Put simply, they could help us to prop-

erly retrieve what we have stored, e.g. speciﬁc rules

and laws. Whether one is a common lawyer or an

expert in a non-legal ﬁeld, they could greatly beneﬁt

from browsing through a legal taxonomy and its hier-

215

Bakhshandeh M., Kolany-Raiser B., Antunes G., Yankova S., Caetano A. and Borbinha J..

A Digital Preservation-Legal Ontology.

DOI: 10.5220/0005056602150222

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development (KEOD-2014), pages 215-222

ISBN: 978-989-758-049-9

 2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

archical classiﬁcation. The ontology-based approach

to capture and formalize legal information is, there-

fore, about shifting power towards business experts,

domain experts, and industrial use-case owners, thus

representing a business centric approach. Ontologies

can help us with this problem and, therefore, could

be a sensible solution to achieve our goal of creat-

ing a common understanding of the meaning of le-

gal concepts and terms, thus mitigating the risk of

misinterpretation, particularly in legal applications.

They could, effectively, fulﬁll this objective by pro-

viding contextual explanation and precise legal infor-

mation. The importance of this technology is evi-

denced by the growing use of ontologies in a variety

of application areas, especially by their role on the

Legal areas as witnessed in (Mommers, 2001),(Visser

and Bench-Capon, 1996), (Valente et al., 1999), (van

Kralingen, 1997), (Breuker et al., 2009) and (Sartor

et al., 2011), (Agnoloni et al., 2009), (Dhouib and

Gargouri, 2014), (Lehmann et al., 2004), (Breuker

et al., 2005), (Cornoiu and Valean, 2013) (Capuano

et al., 2014). Most of these legal ontologies focus on

the process used for building ontology from a legal

corpus given in natural language, there has not been

any legal ontology build in the digital preservation

area. The preservation of digital objects and the reuse

of them in the future are inﬂuenced by legal require-

ments. This has effects on all aspects of the preser-

vation challenge: business constraints, process de-

scriptions, computational environments and their mu-

tual dependencies, digital assets that are produced and

consumed by the processes, roles of individuals and

organizations, and dependencies on third-party prod-

ucts and services

The remainder of this paper is organized as fol-

lows. Section 2 describes the deﬁnition of digital

preservation architecture models. Section 3 describes

the ontology and realization of that in toward a legal

ontology for the digital preservation. Section 4 eval-

uates the solution using a scenario. Finally, Section 5

concludes the paper.

2 DIGITAL PRESERVATION

Digital preservation can be deﬁned as a set of activ-

ities, techniques and methods applied to digital ob-

jects to ensure that they remain accessible and usable

(Hedstrom, 1997). In order to ensure that, it is nec-

essary that the different levels of a digital object are

accounted for (Thibodeau, 2002): the physical object,

which concerns the way information is encoded in the

storage medium; the logical object, which concerns

the way the object is represented so that it can be pro-

cessed by software; and the conceptual object, which

concerns the understandability of the object by people

that want to use it.

As such, in order to ensure that the informational

content of an object can be accessed, there is the need

for a technological context provided by the combi-

nation of speciﬁc hardware and software that is able

to process the physical and logical object. Usually,

information concerning that technological context is

captured and associated with the object, being usually

referred to as “technical metadata” (Borbinha, 2004).

A standard reference model, the ISO 14721 (ISO,

2003), abstractly deﬁnes the activities surrounding the

preservation of digital objects, additionally providing

a data model for supporting the capturing of the re-

quired contextual information.

While the determination and acquisition of this

contextual information can be challenging when deal-

ing with static objects (e.g., images, documents, etc.),

arguably it becomes even more challenging when

dealing with complex digital objects such as work-

ﬂows or business process speciﬁcations (Mayer et al.,

2012). Business processes are increasingly supported

by technology, a fact which, on the one hand cre-

ates opportunities, and on the other hand, increases

the challenges and responsibilities. New requirements

which might involve greater traceability, accountabil-

ity, and trustworthiness, which preservation can ad-

dress.

The TIMBUS project focuses on tackling the chal-

lenges surrounding the preservation of business pro-

cesses. As with any other digital object, the preser-

vation of a business process requires that the contex-

tual information is preserved along with it, allowing

the future redeployment and re-execution of the pro-

cess. However, when dealing with such digital ob-

jects, usually a complex contextual dependency net-

work is involved. That network might encompass

highly complex and distributed technological infras-

tructure, which is hosted in diverse organizational

settings, which sometimes crosses multiple organiza-

tions (Neumann et al., 2012). Correctly determining,

capturing, and representing this information is crucial

not only for the correct rendering and processing of

such objects, but also to be able to understand their

original purpose or motivation. In order to avoid le-

gal conﬂicts and infringements, we initially designed,

implemented, and published (Hoeren et al., 2013) ex-

haustive clauses regarding DPs legal issues, including

Digital Escrow Services that ensure that software sys-

tems.

KEOD2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeEngineeringandOntologyDevelopment

216

3 LEGAL ONTOLOGY

The term ontology comes from the Greek ontos (be-

ing) + logos (word). Which, literally means existence

(Breitman et al., 2007). From the perspective of phi-

losophy, ontology is the systematic explanation of be-

ing (Gomez-Perez and Benjamins, 1999). In com-

puter science, the most widely used deﬁnition char-

acterizes ontologies as “formal, explicit speciﬁcation

of a shared conceptualization” (Gruber, 1993).

The ontology building process is more of a craft,

rather than an engineering activity (Fern

andez-L

opez

et al., 1997). Every development team usually follows

its own set of principles, design criteria, and phases

in the ontology development process. However, there

are a series of well-known methodologies that have

been proposed for building standard ontologies. The

design approach employed in this work is an adapta-

tion of Horridge (Horridge et al., 2004). The steps in-

clude: (1) identiﬁcation of the concepts and concept

hierarchy; (2) identiﬁcation of the disjoint concepts;

(3) modeling composition; (4) addition of all the rela-

tionships between concepts; (5) identiﬁcation of def-

initions; (6) addition of annotations; (7) and reﬁne-

ment of the ontology through various iterations of the

above steps. Most ontology building methodologies

propose iterative approaches in order to allow formal-

ization to be accomplished progressively.

The work was stated by gathering information

process and having several meetings between the me-

dia lawyers, digital preservation experts and infor-

mation system engineers. In this work, we follow

an iterative approach by using conceptual maps as a

“bridge” between the legal taxonomy and the formal

speciﬁcation. For the ﬁrst phase, the concepts and

their relationship were drawn in a Conceptual Map

model. This conceptual map has been validated in an

iterative fashion, to several meetings. Figure 1 de-

picts a representation of the conceptual map used to

develop our Legal Ontology. We have used a concep-

tual modeling tool to progressively detail the model.

In ﬁgure 1 we can see a conceptual map of the legal

perspective. In this description the concepts are writ-

ten in bold and the relationships are in italic:

As we live in a society where there are legal rules

for the conduct of Legal Persons, their Actions Need-

ToComplyWith the Legal Requirements imposed by

the law. A Legal Requirement means generally ev-

erything that is demanded or imposed as an obligation

by law. As a matter of course, Legal Requirements

DifferAccordingTo the Location where Legal Per-

sons carryOut their Actions because the legal rules in

each country are different and depend on the national

legislation.

DigitalPreservation as such an Action NeedTo-

ComplyWith Legal Requirements as well. Regard-

ing DigitalPreservation, the most relevant Legal Re-

quirements are Data Protection, IP-Rights, Obliga-

tionsToPreserve and Contracting. In order to law-

fully preserve BusinessProcesses each Legal Person

has to be aware of legal restrictions, conduct law-

abiding and fulﬁll its legal obligation.

For example, legal ObligationsToPreserve which

require DigitalPreservation already exist. Such

ObligationsToPreserve can be generally found es-

pecially in the areas of tax law (annual balances, in-

voices, etc) or medical law (the health records of pa-

tients) where it appears essential that speciﬁc Data

ﬁles need to be archived for a long period of time.

Artifacts like Software, Databases or other types of

Data CanBeProtectedBy Copyright.

In order to be able to digitally preserve them

without any infringement of IP-Rights, a Legal

Person has to be aware how far the protection of

these Artifacts reaches and whether preservation

Actions/Methods like Migration or Porting are al-

lowed. While Software is usually a subject of Copy-

right protection, Data and Databases need to ful-

ﬁll more speciﬁc criteria to be protected by IP-

Rights. Databases for example CanBeProtectedBy

either Copyright if they constitute the author’s own

intellectual creation; or if that is not the case, they

have simply ProtectionSuiGeneris if their maker has

made a substantial investment. According to the dif-

fering scope of protection different methods and tech-

nics for DigitalPreservation are permissible.

The scope of IP-Right protection CanBeDe-

ﬁnedBy not only national law or European directives

but by Contracts as well. Due to the fact that Le-

gal Persons AreRightholderOf Software, they Can-

Grant RightOfUse to other Legal Persons by signing

(CanSign) a Contract. These Contracts are usually

Licenses or Sale Contracts and Software canBeDe-

liveredOnTheBasisOf of these Contract types. Thus,

not only the author and original rightholder of the

Software but other Legal Persons as well can be au-

thorised to use the Software and obtain RightofUse.

In this sense, some aspects of Copyright like the

RightofUse canBeDeterminedIn Contracts. For ex-

ample, the licensor CanGrant the licensee the right

to freely modify or migrate the Software in a Li-

cense Contract and thus make Actions necessary for

the execution of DigitalPreservation legally feasible.

In case that one JuridicalPerson like a company of-

fers DigitalPreservation as a service for other Ju-

ridicalPersons, they CanSign a ServiceContract and

deﬁne the particular parameters of appointed service

level in an annex to the Contract called ServiceLeve-

ADigitalPreservation-LegalOntology

217

Figure 1: Conceptual Map of Legal Concepts and Relationships.

lAgreements.

Data CanBe related to an identiﬁed or identiﬁable

NaturalPerson and therefore CanBe PersonalData

or even SensitiveData. Such Data needs legal pro-

tection from any acts of DataProcessing which are

unwelcomed by the NaturalPerson to whom the Per-

sonalData belongs. This due to the principle that

every NaturalPerson has the right of informational

self-determination and the right of privacy. Therefore,

privacy security and Data Protection are essential Le-

gal Requirements and the compliance with them is

monitored by public authorities.

Thus, if Data is digitally preserved it has to be

guaranteed that the Actions necessary for Digital-

Preservation are compliant with (NeedToComply-

With) the rules of DataProtection. One basic con-

cept of DataProtection is that DataProcessing re-

quires the ConsentOfDataSubject. The NaturalPer-

son to whom the PersonalData belongs is called in

this sense Datasubject. The ConsentOfDataSubject

has to be given in advance regarding the speciﬁc pro-

cess and cannot be generic. A way to be compliant

with the rules of DataProtection can be to hide the

personal component of Data as well as the connection

between the certain Datasubject and its Personal-

Data by transforming the Data to AnonymousData

or EncodedData.

The legal conceptual map was used as the in-

put to create the ontology, using the OWL repre-

sentation. The concepts contained in the concept

map were mapped into OWL classes. Relations were

mapped into OWL ObjectProperties, and restrictions

were added into those properties: InverseObjectProp-

erties and SuperObjectProperties axioms were added

to the OWL ontology. Cardinalities were also added

to some of the concepts and relations. Furthermore,

some DataProperties were deﬁned. This ontology was

built in the tool Prot

http://protege.stanford.edu

KEOD2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeEngineeringandOntologyDevelopment

218

Figure 2: Case Study.

4 CASE STUDY AND

VALIDATION

Figure 2 depicts the case study. Jonas-Pharma GmbH

is a Pharmaceutical Company with its headquarters

in Cologne and enters into a License Contract with a

Software Development Company Net Software Solu-

tion in order to use the software Iris created by the

Software Development Company. The Jonas-Pharma

GmbH wants to digitally preserve the relevant data of

their business processes including the software Iris.

Consequently, the necessary rights of use must be

granted in the License Contract. The rights of re-

production and migration and alteration are essential

for digital preservation. In the given scenario, the

necessary rights are not explicitly included. Conse-

quently, an amendment agreement is required grant-

ing the necessary rights for digital preservation. The

software Iris is copyright protected. Copyright be-

longs to the IP-Rights.

The Net Software Solution owns the exclusive

rights of the software Iris. As rightholder, Net Soft-

ware Solution can grant the necessary rights of use

to Jonas-Pharma GmbH. Furthermore, the two parties

enter into a Service and Maintenance Contract regard-

ing the software Iris. Details are deﬁned in the Service

Level Agreements. The software is very important

for the workﬂows of Jonas-Pharma GmbH. Conse-

quently, Jonas-Pharma GmbH must take precautions,

for example in case of non-maintenance of the soft-

ware. That is why two companies sign an Escrow

Agreement.

They decided their Escrow Agent should be NCC

Group GmbH whose head ofﬁce is located in Munich.

All relevant material, such as the source code and

the development documentation are stored at NCC

Group GmbH the Escrow Agent. In case of a trig-

gering event, for example the non-maintenance of

the software by Net Software Solution, Jonas-Pharma

GmbH receives the material in order to be able to

maintain the software or do necessary corrections

and/or updates. Jonas-Pharma GmbH has to comply

with certain legal obligations to preserve data. Non-

compliance of a company with its obligations to pre-

serve data can result into damages, an administrative

ADigitalPreservation-LegalOntology

219

offence or even a crime.

For example, all data relevant for accounting and

ﬁscal purposes must be preserved. This includes for

example e-invoices and emails containing business

correspondence. These are so-called non-sector spe-

ciﬁc obligations. Furthermore, pay roll information

must be preserved containing personal data of the em-

ployees of Jonas-Pharma GmbH. Data Protection re-

quirements must be fulﬁlled. The employees must

consent to the preservation of the pay roll information

which includes their personal data or a legal permis-

sion must exist. The employees have to consent to

each data processing operation, a general consent is

not sufﬁcient.

As a sector-speciﬁc obligation, Jonas-Pharma

GmbH has the obligation to retrain the batch doc-

umentation of the different medical products. For

example, manufacturing formulae and testing results

must be preserved. The competent national or Euro-

pean authorities can control Jonas-Pharma GmbH and

demand access to the stored data.

In addition, Jonas-Pharma GmbH hires interface

media to design a web-page. Interface media has

an ofﬁce in Zurich. Both parties enter into a con-

tract. The contract contains a so-called duties record

book summarizing the expectations of Jonas-Pharma

GmbH with regard to type, scope, structure and func-

tionality of the web-page. In the contract, the duties to

cooperate of the Jonas-Pharma GmbH are speciﬁed,

which has a content management tool, called Word-

Press. Interface media holds the copyright. The nec-

essary rights of use are granted exclusively, irrevoca-

bly and without restrictions in time or space to Jonas-

Pharma GmbH. However, the granted rights of use are

limited to the use of the webpage or rather parts of it

in the internet.

Additionally, Jonas-Pharma GmbH and the In-

terface media enter into a Service and Maintenance

Contract. Details are deﬁned in the Service Level

Agreements. The web-page includes the possibil-

ity for medical practitioners and pharmacists to ac-

cess a closed forum after having completed a registra-

tion process. Personal data such as the name, day of

birth as well as the completion of a medical or phar-

maceutical study must be provided. With regard to

Data Protection, the medical practitioners and phar-

macists must consent to each data processing opera-

tion. Within the closed forum, the medical practition-

ers and pharmacists are provided with detailed infor-

mation with regard to the medical products.

Furthermore, Jonas-Pharma GmbH informs the

professionals about new medical products and initi-

ates an exchange between the experts. The web-page

also contains a search engine tool to help the user ﬁnd

the relevant information about the drugs and their side

effects, the search engine tool uses ABDA databases

which contain comprehensive data concerning medic-

inal drugs and substances as well as drug-related in-

formation and has time protection for more than ﬁf-

teen years. This drug information analyses process

and all the other business process is also digitally pre-

served. Jonas-Pharma GmbH wants to digitally pre-

serve this drug information analyses process for lia-

bility reasons with regard to the search result, so they

can re-run the business process later in the event of

litigation.

The Jonas-Pharma GmbH company cooperates

with the St. Elisabeth hospital in Vienna who car-

ries out medical studies. Therefore, Jonas-Pharma

GmbH and the St. Elisabeth hospital have entered

into a work contract. One long-term patient study ex-

amines the efﬁciency of a drug aiming at minimizing

the symptoms of an incurable disease. The St. Elisa-

beth hospital uses the data of different patients, which

have consent to each data processing operation neces-

sary for the processing and utilization of the results.

The patients are examined at regular intervals. Conse-

quently, the hospital must be able to assign the gained

information to a certain patient. Therefore, the data

is only encoded which was Programmed by Net Soft-

ware Solution.

This patient encoding data process is carried out

be St. Elisabeth hospital. As the medical study is a

long-term study, it is important that the hospital can

add new results which are gained every six month.

The Encoding data analyses tool has also a function to

decode the encoded data with the patient decoded data

process, so the new results can be added to the already

existing results in the patient’s ﬁles. Only encoded

data is transferred to Jonas-Pharma GmbH where it

shall be digitally preserved. After implementing the

scenario in the legal ontology we had to validate the

legal ontology by performing reasoning and inference

over legal knowledge and information.

According to(Fox and Gruninger, 1998) one of

the ways to determine the scope of the ontology is to

sketch a list of questions that a knowledge base based

on the ontology should be able to answer. We have

applied reasoning queries (competency questions) to

our Legal Ontology. The goal here is to ensure con-

sistency/conformity and attain specialized legal infor-

mation for the DP of whole business processes and

services. A set of predeﬁned competency questions

were used in order to validate ontology. Some of the

competency questions deﬁned to validate the legal on-

tology (due to the lack of space we could not repre-

sent more) is composed by the following questions,

with the respective results being depicted in Figure 3:

KEOD2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeEngineeringandOntologyDevelopment

220

Figure 3: Query Results.

• (a) Which are the basic legal requirements regard-

ing digital preservation?

• (b) Which type of contracts exist in the case of

digital preservation

• (c) Which database has 15 years time protection

by copyright?

• (d) What is the business process that exists be-

tween the St. Elisabeth hospital and Net Software

Solution company?

• (e) Who has the exclusive right of the copyright

holder for the ABDA database?

5 CONCLUSIONS

This paper proposes using ontologies to integrate law

perspective with digital preservation domain. Ontolo-

gies describe a domain model by associating mean-

ing to its terms and relations. The importance of this

technology is evidenced by the growing use of on-

tologies in a diversity of application areas. A legal

ontology was made for the digital preservation do-

main. This unifying Legal Ontology is intended to

function as a lingua-franca to facilitate the translation

and mapping between different perspectives, as well

as reasoning and inference over legal information in

the domain of digital preservation. Next, the legal on-

tology was validated by a set of competency questions

through a speciﬁc case study. This validation was pro-

cessed with reasoning methods.one of the limitation

of our Digital Preservation-Legal Ontology was that

it couldn’t answer some of the legal question that the

answers were yes/no. Future work will focus on the

application of this approach to new scenarios in order

to discover the analysis possibilities, considering the

usage of different reasoning and querying techniques.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project is partially supported by the European

Commission under the 7th Framework Programme

(FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement 269940,

TIMBUS project (http://timbusproject.net) .

REFERENCES

Agnoloni, T., Bacci, L., Francesconi, E., Peters, W., Mon-

temagni, S., and Venturi, G. (2009). A two-level

knowledge approach to support multilingual legisla-

tive drafting. Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web,

188:177–198.

Borbinha, J. (2004). Authority control in the world of meta-

data. Cataloging & classiﬁcation quarterly, 38(3-

4):105–116.

ADigitalPreservation-LegalOntology

221

Breitman, K., Casanova, M. A., and Truszkowski, W.

(2007). Semantic Web: Concepts, Technologies and

Applications: Concepts, Technologies and Applica-

tions. Springer.

Breuker, J., Casanovas, P., Klein, M. C. A., and

Francesconi, E. (2009). The ﬂood, the channels and

the dykes: Managing legal information in a globalized

and digital world. Law, Ontologies and the Seman-

tic Web: Channelling the Legal Information Flood,

188:3.

Breuker, J., Valente, A., and Winkels, R. (2005). Use and

reuse of legal ontologies in knowledge engineering

and information management. In Law and the Seman-

tic Web, pages 36–64. Springer.

Brunsmann, J., Wilkes, W., Schlageter, G., and Hemmje, M.

(2012). State-of-the-art of long-term preservation in

product lifecycle management. International Journal

on Digital Libraries, 12:27–39.

Burger, T. and Simperl, E. (2008). Measuring the beneﬁts

of ontologies. In On the Move to Meaningful Inter-

net Systems: OTM 2008 Workshops, pages 584–594.

Springer.

Capuano, N., De Maio, C., Salerno, S., and Toti, D. (2014).

A methodology based on commonsense knowledge

and ontologies for the automatic classiﬁcation of legal

cases. In Proceedings of the 4th International Con-

ference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics

(WIMS14), page 27. ACM.

Chanod, J., M.Dobreva, A.Rauber, S.Ross, and V.Casarosa

(2010). Issuesin digital preservation: Towardsa new

research agenda. In Automation in Digital Preserva-

tion, 2010-07-18 - 2010-07-23, Schloss Dagstuhl.

Cornoiu, S. and Valean, H. (2013). New development for le-

gal information retrieval using the eurovoc thesaurus

and legal ontology. In System Theory, Control and

Computing (ICSTCC), 2013 17th International Con-

ference, pages 152–155. IEEE.

Dhouib, K. and Gargouri, F. (2014). A textual jurisprudence

decision structuring methodology based on extraction

patterns and arabic legal ontology. Journal of Deci-

sion Systems, 23(1):69–81.

Edelstein, O., Factor, M., King, R., Risse, T., Salant, E.,

and Taylor, P. (2011). Evolving domains, problems

and solutions for long term digital preservation. In

Proc. of 8th International Conference on Preservation

of Digital Objects iPRES 2011, Singapore, November

1-4, 2011.

Fern

andez-L

opez, M., G

omez-P

erez, A., and Juristo, N.

(1997). Methontology: from ontological art towards

ontological engineering.

Fox, M. S. and Gruninger, M. (1998). Enterprise modeling.

AI magazine, 19(3):109.

Gomez-Perez, A. and Benjamins, R. (1999). Overview of

knowledge sharing and reuse components: Ontologies

and problem-solving methods. IJCAI and the Scandi-

navian AI Societies. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.

Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable

ontology speciﬁcations. Knowledge acquisition,

5(2):199–220.

Hedstrom, M. (1997). Digital preservation: a time bomb

for digital libraries. Computers and the Humanities,

31(3):189–202.

Hoeren, T., Kolany-Raiser, B., Yankova, S., Hecheltjen,

M., and Hobel, K. (2013). Legal Aspects Of Digital

Preservation. Edward Elgar.

Horridge, M., Knublauch, H., Rector, A., Stevens, R., and

Wroe, C. (2004). A practical guide to building owl on-

tologies using the prot

e-owl plugin and co-ode tools

edition 1.0. University of Manchester.

ISO (2003). ISO 14721:2003. Open archival information

system – Reference model. International Organization

for Standardization.

Lehmann, J., Breuker, J., and Brouwer, B. (2004). Cau-

sation in ai and law. Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Law,

12(4):279–315.

Ma, J., Abie, H., Skramstad, T., and Nygard, M. (2009).

Development and validation of requirements for evi-

dential value for assessing trustworthiness of digital

records over time. In MASS ’09. IEEE 6th Interna-

tional Conference on Mobile Adhoc and Sensor Sys-

tems, 2009.

Mayer, R., Rauber, A., Neumann, M. A., Thomson, J., and

Antunes, G. (2012). Preserving scientiﬁc processes

from design to publications. In Theory and Practice

of Digital Libraries, pages 113–124. Springer.

Mommers, L. (2001). A knowledge-based ontology of the

legal domain. In Second International Workshop on

Legal Ontologies, JURIX.

Neumann, A., Miri, H., Thomson, J., Antunes, G., Mayer,

R., and Beigl, M. (2012). Towards a decision support

architecture for digital preservation of business pro-

cesses. In Proceedings of the 9th Int. Conf. on Digital

Preservation (iPres 2012).

Sartor, G., Casanovas, P., Biasiotti, M., and Fern

andez-

Barrera, M. (2011). Approaches to legal ontologies.

Springer.

Strodl, S., Mayer, R., Antunes, G., Draws, D., and Rauber,

A. (2013). Digital preservation of a process and its ap-

plication to e-science experiments. In Proceedings of

the 10th International Conference on Preservation of

Digital Objects (IPRES2013), pages 117-125, Lisbon,

Portugal, September 2013.

Thibodeau, K. (2002). Overview of technological ap-

proaches to digital preservation and challenges in

coming years. The state of digital preservation: an

international perspective, pages 4–31.

Valente, A., Breuker, J., and Brouwer, B. (1999). Le-

gal modeling and automated reasoning with on-line.

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,

51(6):1079–1125.

van Kralingen, R. (1997). A conceptual frame-based on-

tology for the law. In Proceedings of the First Inter-

national Workshop on Legal Ontologies, pages 6–17.

Citeseer.

Visser, P. and Bench-Capon, T. (1996). The formal speciﬁ-

cation of a legal ontology. In Proceedings of JURIX,

volume 96, pages 15–24.

KEOD2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeEngineeringandOntologyDevelopment

222