<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>for Legal Information Retrieval and Compliance Checking</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Enrico Francesconi</string-name>
          <email>enrico.francesconi@igsg.cnr.it</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>50127 Firenze</institution>
          ,
          <country country="IT">Italy</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Institute of Legal Informatics and Judicial Studies, National Research Council of Italy (IGSG-CNR)</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Via dei Barucci 20</addr-line>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Semantic Web</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Decidable Legal, Reasoning, Legal Information Retrieval, Legal Compliance</addr-line>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Machine readable, actionable rules represent a precondition for developing advanced information services in the legal domain endowed with automatic reasoning facilities. In this talk we present an approach for legal knowledge representation and reasoning within a Semantic Web framework. It is based on the distinction between provisions and norms and it is able to provide reasoning facilities (like Hohfeldian reasoning) for advanced legal information retrieval and legal compliance checking for deontic norms. It is also shown how the approach can handle norm defeasibility. Such methodology is implemented with decidable fragments of OWL 2, while legal reasoning is implemented through available decidable reasoners.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Compliance</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>CEUR</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Workshop Proceedings</title>
      <p>CEUR</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list />
  </back>
</article>