바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.45 No.2
Citation Share

온톨로지 기반 법률 검색시스템의 구축 및 평가에 관한 연구

Developing and Evaluating an Ontology-based Legal Retrieval System

한국문헌정보학회지 / Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, (P)1225-598X; (E)2982-6292
2011, v.45 no.2, pp.345-366
https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2011.45.2.345
장인호 (대진대학교)
장인호. (2011). 온톨로지 기반 법률 검색시스템의 구축 및 평가에 관한 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지, 45(2), 345-366, https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2011.45.2.345
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

법은 실생활에 직접 영향을 미치는 중요한 정보원이다. 법률 정보가 전자적으로 접근할 수 있게 되었음에도 불구하고, 현행 키워드 기반 검색시스템은 법률용어와 일상용어의 불일치, 생략형의 용어 사용, 법률용어의 다의성, 법률 정보의 대량 생산 그리고 질의-응답 형식의 검색 욕구 등의 문제를 잘 해결하지 못하고 있는 실정이다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위한 하나의 방식으로 온톨로지 기반 검색시스템이 제시되고 있다. 본 연구자는 법률 온톨로지와 그 온톨로지를 기반으로 하는 법률 검색시스템(실험시스템)을 구축하는 연구와, 실험시스템의 평가를 위하여 현존하는 키워드 기반 법률 검색시스템(비교시스템)과 비교 실험을 통해 검색 성능과 이용자 만족도를 평가하는 연구를 수행하였다.

keywords
법률 온톨로지, 온톨로지 기반 법률 검색시스템, 검색 성능 평가, 이용자 만족도 평가, Legal Ontology, Ontology-based Legal Information Retrieval System, Measures of Retrieval Effectiveness, Measures of User Satisfactions, Legal Ontology, Ontology-based Legal Information Retrieval System, Measures of Retrieval Effectiveness, Measures of User Satisfactions

Abstract

The law affects our daily lives, and hence, constitutes a crucial information resource. However, electronic access to legal information using keyword-based retrieval systems appears to provide users with limited satisfaction. There are many factors behind this inadequacy. First, the discrepancies between formal legal terms and their counterparts in common language are quite large. Second, the situation is further confounded by frequent abbreviations in legal terms. Third, even though there is a constant deluge of legal information, users’ needs have evolved to demand more Q and A type searches. All of these factors make the existing retrieval systems inefficient and ineffective. This article suggests an ontology-based system as a means to deal with such difficulties. To that end, a legal retrieval system(experimental system), built on the basis of a newly-constructed law ontology, was tested against a keyword-based legal retrieval system(existing one), yielding data on their relative effectiveness in retrieval and user satisfaction.

keywords
법률 온톨로지, 온톨로지 기반 법률 검색시스템, 검색 성능 평가, 이용자 만족도 평가, Legal Ontology, Ontology-based Legal Information Retrieval System, Measures of Retrieval Effectiveness, Measures of User Satisfactions, Legal Ontology, Ontology-based Legal Information Retrieval System, Measures of Retrieval Effectiveness, Measures of User Satisfactions

참고문헌

1.

김재호, 이경순, 오종훈, 장두성, 최기선. 2001. KorQATeC 2.0 질의/응답 시스템의 성능 평가를위한 평가집합 구축. 한국정보과학회 언어공학연구회 01 제13회 한글 및 한국어 정보처리 학술대회 , 12: 397-404.

2.

Benjamins, V. R., Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., & Gangemi, A. 2005a. “An introduction.” Lawand the Semantic Web. 1-17. [New York]: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

3.

Benjamins, V. R., Casanovas, P., Contreras, J., & Lopez Cobo, J. M. 2005b. “Iuriservice: Anintelligent frequently asked questions system to assist newly appointed judges.” Law andthe Semantic Web. 201-217. [New York]: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

4.

Boella, G., Lesmo, L., & Damiano, R. 2005. “On the ontological status of norms.” Law andthe Semantic Web, 125-141. [New York]: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

5.

Breuker, J., Casanovas, P., & Klein Michel C. A. 2009. Law, Ontologies and the SemanticWeb: Channelling the Legal Information Flood. Nieuwe Hemweg: IOS Press.

6.

Breuker, J., Hoekstra, R., Boer, A., & van den Berg, K. 2007. OWL Ontology of Basic LegalConcepts(LKIF-Core) Deliverable 1.4. [S.l.]: Information Society Technologies.

7.

Breuker, J., Valente, A. and Winkels, R. 2004. “Legal ontologies in knowledge engineeringand information management.” Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12: 241-277.

8.

Casanovas, P., Casellas, N., & Valbé, J-J. 2009. An Ontology-Based Decision Support Systemfor Judges. 165-175. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

9.

Gangemi, A., Sagri, M-T., & Tiscornia, D. 2005. “A constructive framework for legalontologies." Law and the Semantic Web, 97-124. [New York]: Springer-Verlag BerlinHeidelberg.

10.

Hoekstra, R., Breuker, J., Di Bello, M., & Boer, A. 2009. LKIF-Core: Principled OntologyDevelopment for the Legal Domain. 21-52. [Amsterdam]: IOS Press.

11.

Kingston, J., Schafer, B., & Vandenberghe, W. 2005. “No model behaviour: ontologies forfraud detection." Law and the Semantic Web, 233-248. [New York]: Springer-VerlagBerlin Heidelberg.

12.

Lame, G. 2005. “Using NLP techniques to identify legal ontology components: conceptsand relations." Law and the Semantic Web, 169-184. [New York]: Springer-Verlag BerlinHeidelberg.

13.

Lehmann, J., Breuker, J., & Brouwer, B. 2005. “CAUSATIONT: modeling causation in AI &Law." Law and the Semantic Web, 77-96. [New York]: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

14.

McCarty, L. T. 1989. “A language for legal discourse: I. Basic features.” Proceedings of theSecond International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 180-189. Vancouver,Canada.

15.

Noy, N. F., & McGuinness, D. L. 2001. Ontology Development 101: A Guide to CreatingYour First Ontology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

16.

Stamper, K. R. 1991. “The role of semantics in legal expert systems and legal reasoning.”Ratio Juris, 4(2): 219-244.

17.

Valente, A. 1995. Legal Knowledge Engineering: A Modelling Approach. Amsterdam:University of Amsterdam; IOS Press.

18.

van Laarschot, Ronny. 2005. Ontology-Based Knowledge Modelling in Dutch Civil Law. MScthesis, Department of Artificial Intelligence, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

한국문헌정보학회지

논문 투고 OA 정책