=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-465/paper-3
|storemode=property
|title=Modelling Expert Knowledge in the Mediation Domain: A Mediation Core Ontology
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-465/paper3.pdf
|volume=Vol-465
}}
==Modelling Expert Knowledge in the Mediation Domain: A Mediation Core Ontology==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-465/paper3.pdf
Modeling Expert Knowledge in the Mediation Domain:
A Middle-out Approach to Design ODR Ontologies
Marta Poblet1, Núria Casellas2, Sergi Torralba2, and Pompeu Casanovas2
1
ICREA Researcher at the Institute of Law and Technology
2
Institute of Law and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Facultat de Dret,
08193 Bellaterra, Spain
{Marta.Poblet, Nuria.Casellas, Sergi.Torralba, Pompeu.Casanovas}@uab.cat
Abstract. In this paper we describe the steps taken to model expert knowledge
within the mediation domain as the basis for the design of the Mediation Core
Ontology (MCO), of which we also offer a first outline of its present stage of
development. MCO is created from scratch by eliciting practical knowledge
from mediation experts to identify the basic working concepts of the domain.
MCO offers initial support towards knowledge acquisition and reasoning and,
in later steps, will serve as a general basis for the development of different
mediation domain and sub-domain ontologies to be used by the ONTOMEDIA
mediation platform, currently also under development.
Keywords: Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR), online mediation, ontologies, knowledge acquisition.
1 Introduction
Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) is an umbrella domain that covers a full range of
processes (i.e. negotiation, early neutral evaluation, conciliation, mediation, and
arbitration) to handle disputes online. While it was sometimes viewed as the online
equivalent of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) processes, there is a growing
consensus in specialized literature that considers ODR more than just the delivery of
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services through the Internet, especially since
Katsh first suggested to give technology the role of a “four party” [1]. In this line, the
emergence of a panoply of both new terminologies and typologies to systematize
current ODR practices proves that the domain is becoming a branch of dispute
resolution in its own right [2, 3, 4, 5].
For fifteen years now, ODR processes have evolved with the development of the
Internet. As an example, ENSs (e-negotiation systems) deployed in the Web use
different Internet technologies to actively assist negotiators, facilitators, and mediators
[6]. Yet, some experts have warned that ODR service providers may be lagging
behind the curve of recent developments in both Web 2.0 and Semantic Web [7, 8, 9].
The ONTOMEDIA project aims at filling this gap by designing an interactive, web-
based mediation platform to assist disputing parties and mediators in identifying
different options for the management and resolution of disputes in different domains. 1
One of the objectives of ONTOMEDIA is to model expert knowledge on mediation as
a domain independent process that, in turn, may be able to encompass different
mediation sub-domains (i.e. commerce, family, health, workplace, environment, etc.).
The ONTOMEDIA platform will therefore assist users in considering different
options of mediation and guiding them throughout the online mediation process.
In this paper we describe the methodological approach taken for modeling expert
knowledge on mediation processes, and outline the design of the Mediation Core
Ontology (MCO). MCO thus represents the common structure of mediation processes
and provides the platform with conceptual machine-processable knowledge regarding
mediation events. This is one of the first attempts to design an ontology that models
mediation processes within the dispute resolution field.
2 Mediation as a domain of knowledge
A meta-analysis of the relational justice domain (the justice produced through
cooperative behavior, agreement, negotiation, or dialogue among actors in conflict or
post-conflict situations) reveals that there are at least thirty disciplinary areas
contributing to the development of the domain [10]. It therefore comes as no surprise
if the mediation domain is populated with a full range of concepts, operational
definitions, and models [11, 12]. To quote a recent example, Alexander identifies up
to six models of mediation practice: settlement mediation, facilitative mediation,
transformative mediation, expert advisory mediation, wise counsel mediation, and
tradition-based mediation [12]. In addition, as far as it provides a new procedural and
communicational framework for interaction, decision-making, and emotion
expression [13] online mediation may substantially transform any of those models.
2.1 Mediation as a process
While bearing in mind the many possible ways in which mediation might be
defined and modeled, therefore, we have opted for an approach that emphasizes the
representation of the procedural aspects of mediation over the epistemological and
theoretical ones. This is not meant to be an entirely agnostic approach, since the focus
on procedures already implies epistemological and theoretical choices. Similarly, the
emphasis on procedural knowledge does not entail neglecting conceptual knowledge
on mediation. Rather, we intend MCO to be a shareable and reusable ontology so that
we needed to restrain these ontological commitments to a minimum [14].
Coherently, we propose to define mediation as a voluntary, non-binding process in
which a neutral third party, the mediator, assists the parties in reaching a settlement of
the dispute. This definition is consistent with the one proposed by the recent Directive
1 ONTOMEDIA: Platform of Web Services for Online Mediation, Spanish Ministry of
Industry, Tourism and Commerce (Plan AVANZA I+D, TSI-020501-2008, 2008-2010).
2008/52/EC, 2 and flexible enough to allow any number of disputing parties, roles, and
procedural stages of mediation.
2.1 Ontologies, mediation and ODR
To date, there is no working ontology dealing with the fundamental concepts of
mediation as a process. Certainly, there is precedent work on ontology design within
related domains, namely the e-commerce field [15], task collaboration [16],
negotiation [17], and negotiation agents [18]. There are also some ontologies that
model different conflict events [19, 20] but in these cases the emphasis is put on
terrorism and security issues rather than in conflict management.
Finally, there are a number of ongoing research projects that are currently
developing ODR-related ontologies. The BEST project (BATNA Establishment using
Semantic Web Technology) aims to provide disputing parties with information about
their position in the negotiations before they seek professional assistance, and to assist
them in the dispute or get information about the legal possibilities to claim
compensations [21]. The ALIS Project (Automated Legal Intelligent System)
combines game theory, computational logic, and legal reasoning to analyze the
compliance of parties’ requests in intellectual property disputes [22]. The CEN
Workshop on Standardization of Online Dispute Resolution Tools has elaborated a
basic ontology of ODR processes [23]. While BEST and ALIS are producing in fact
legal domain ontologies (covering damage disputes and intellectual property
respectively), the CEN ontology is domain-independent and, thus, the closest
precedent to our work [24].
3 Mediation Core Ontology development
The initial stages of the ONTOMEDIA project have run in parallel with the
elaboration of the White Book on Mediation in Catalonia, a project coordinated by the
UAB Institute of Law and Technology [25]. The main purpose of the White Book is
to provide Catalan lawmakers with in-depth research on the state-of-the-art mediation
theories and practices as the basis for future legislation and policies. The White Book
project has provided a unique opportunity to gather national and international leading
experts and practitioners in a number of work sessions and workshops on concepts,
methods, techniques and protocols of mediation.
The expert knowledge and support offered by the participants and the outcomes of
the White Book project have been integrated in the methodological process for the
2 The Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on
certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters defines mediation in article 3(a)
as “a structured process, however named or referred to, whereby two or more parties to a
dispute attempt by themselves, on a voluntary basis, to reach an agreement on the settlement
of their dispute with the assistance of a mediator. This process may be initiated by the parties
or suggested or ordered by a court or prescribed by the law of a Member State”.
development of MCO. These different methodological steps have followed already
established ontology development methodologies, such as METHONTOLOGY [26],
On-To-Knowledge (OTK) [27], HCOME [28] or UPON [29], which describe a
preparatory step (establishment of requirements), a development step (knowledge
acquisition, conceptualization and formalization), an evaluation stage and a (if
required) implementation step [30]. In the following sections, we will describe the
preparatory and development steps.
3.1 Ontology requirements
MCO will serve as a general basis for the development of the mediation domain
ontologies and sub-ontologies that will be used by the ONTOMEDIA platform.
Therefore, it is directed at knowledge reuse, although it may also offer initial support
towards knowledge acquisition and reasoning.
The knowledge acquisition stage is mainly based on the elicitation of expert
knowledge. Nevertheless, existing upper ontologies (and legal core ontologies) are
taken into account for design purposes. This knowledge acquisition process is guided
by a list of questions establishing which knowledge ought to be included in the
ontology and what type of answers ought the ontology to be able to give.
Table 1: Mediation Core Ontology (MCO) Requirements Specification Document
Explicit expert knowledge in the mediation domain for knowledge reuse and
Purpose
for providing support towards knowledge acquisition and reasoning.
An expert-based methodology based on the main steps provided by several
current ontology methodologies (METHONTOLOGY, OTK, HCOME or
UPON): 1) preparatory step, 2) development step, and 3) evaluation step. The
Methodological
knowledge acquisition process is mainly based on knowledge elicitation from
approach
experts, although is supported by knowledge acquisition from texts and
guidance from theoretical approaches to the analysis of the mediation
domain.
What types of mediation exist? What characterizes them?
Are there separate acts or situations within a mediation
process? Which documents or other information sources are
produced or used during a mediation process or stage?
Competency Which participants can take part in a specific type of
questions mediation process? Which restrictions on the mediation
Sources of process are caused by the topic of the mediation? What are
knowledge the limitations on agents regarding the roles they might take
in a mediation process?
Expert elicitation (White Book project).
Other
Relevant regulations and legislation (e.g. Directive
sources
2008/52/EC, EC Recommendation 98/257 & 2001/310).
Tool support Statistic text analysis tools (JRef, Yoshikoder, AntConc, etc.)
Ontology editor Protégé v. 3.4.
Conceptual knowledge contained in upper ontologies such as PROTON [31],
Reuse LKIF-Core [32], CLO (DOLCE) [33], has been taken into account as design
support.
3.2 Knowledge acquisition
From the knowledge acquisition perspective, the White Book outputs (early drafts,
workshop papers, literature reviews, etc.) are a first-hand input for ontology design in
ONTOMEDIA. We have analyzed these materials in consensus building sessions to
identify a common conceptual framework broader enough to support different models
and sub-domains of mediation. As a result, we elicited an initial taxonomy of
concepts and relations, guided by the established competency questions (ORSD).
Figure 1: Expert schema regarding mediation documents
A second source of acquisition of knowledge has been drawn from ethnographic
fieldwork, since one member of the team has been participating in a multiparty
mediation process involving five mediators (this is work in progress). Participant
observation has produced informal interviews with mediators conducted either
individually or in group to elicit procedural knowledge used by domain experts in
their practice. The translation of ethnographic findings into manageable knowledge
leading to the design of ontologies relies on experience from related research projects
[34, 35]. In this case, ethnographic research also loosely follows the guidelines of the
EthnoModel, which are defined as a set of generic heuristics that “may be used both
by investigators to conduct ethnographic studies of work and by designers interested
in system design” (i.e. plans, procedures, and coordination) [36].
We have complemented these previous inputs with an analysis of mediation
procedures as deployed by major mediation services (both online and off line service
providers). Again, we have benefitted here from synergies from the White Book
project, where we have developed a template to analyze which mediation stages and
related mediation forms are most usual among major service providers (up to 23 so
far), regardless of the mediation sub-domain involved [37].
Finally, relevant existing regulations within the European Union (e.g. Directive
2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on
certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters) have been taken into
account as regards concept definitions and linguistic use of terms. For example,
extracted relevant terms in the mediation domain from European regulations are:
mediation, parties, dispute, agreement, process, mediator, information, resolution,
provider, etc.
4 Mediation Core Ontology (MCO)
The knowledge acquired in the previous phase (list of terms and conceptual schemas
regarding knowledge required for the competency questions) from the experts has
been further formalized in OWL-DL. 3 The current version of the Mediation Core
Ontology has 62 concepts. The main objective of the formalization stage was to
model formally the main acquired concepts related to the mediation domain and to try
to establish the most important relations between them.
Our approach has resulted in an initial taxonomic structure formed by the
following concepts:
• MediationAgent: Includes all possible agents (actors) in the mediation
domain.
• MediationInformationSource: All possible information sources,
including the forms that are created within the mediation process or
MediationForm (such as, AgreementToMediate, or
NoticeOfTermination), and other sources of information that can
support the claims of the disputants.
• MediationTopic: all topics that configure the different types of
MediationProcess, for example, mediation regarding family issues,
consumer related complaints, environmental issues, school or labour
problems, etc. The mediation process, its agents and other related concepts
may require different properties according to the topic or the particular
problem underlying the process.
• MediationProcess: includes the different processes according to their
topic. Thus, it includes as subclasses: ConsumerMediation,
SchoolMediation, LabourMediation, etc.
• MediationProcessStage: identifiable stages of a mediation process.
• MediationSession: identifiable situations taking part during the
mediation process involving the different roles.
• MediationRole: all the possible roles that participants may assume in a
mediation process (Disputant, Mediator, ServiceProvider,
LegalRepresentative are some of its subclasses).
3 Protégé versión 3.4.
Figure 2: MediationRole in Mediation Core Ontology
Once this main hierarchy of concepts could be established, these concepts were
specified and the main relations existing between them, elicited from experts, were
also formalized. At the moment, 10 owl:objectProperty and 3
owl:dataTypeProperties have been included in the ontology.
More complex relations and concept definitions have also been specified to allow
reasoning on the mediation domain, and facilitate its reuse by the OntoMedia
platform. For example, the ontology includes the specification of the idea that a
mediation process requires at least two disputants and one mediator.
5 Conclusions and future work
In this paper we have described the knowledge acquisition process and
conceptualization stages leading to the design of the Mediation Core Ontology
(MCO), of which we also offer a first outline. We intend MCO to represent a basic
and flexible conceptual structure of mediation processes with minimal ontological
commitments.
Currently, the Mediation Core Ontology includes only the concepts related to the
core mediation domain, and may be of use towards knowledge acquisition and
reasoning tasks. Future work will include its modular extension to the different
mediation subdomains (i.e. labour mediation, family mediation, etc.) and will be
adapted for the use of the ONTOMEDIA platform.
Moreover, the Mediation Core Ontology is currently under submission for
evaluation to an expert panel from the White Book project, and will be further tested
(and refined if necessary) with the instantiation of several currently available
mediation services.
Once the ontology has undergone the evaluation and refinement processes it will
be made publicly available.
Acknowledgments. The research presented in this paper has been developed within
the framework of two different projects: (i) ONTOMEDIA: Platform of Web Services
for Online Mediation, Spanish Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce (Plan
AVANZA I+D, TSI-020501-2008, 2008-2010); (ii) ONTOMEDIA: Semantic Web,
Ontologies and ODR: Platform of Web Services for Online Mediation (2009-2011),
Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CSO-2008-05536-SOCI).
References
1. Katsh, E., Rifkin, J.: Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace. Jossey-
Bass Inc., San Francisco (2001)
2. Mann, B. L.: Smoothing Some Wrinkles in Online Dispute Resolution. International Journal
of Law and Information Technology 17(1), 83--112 (2008)
3. Thiessen, E., Zeleznikow, J: “Technical Aspects of Online Dispute Resolution -Challenges
and Opportunities” in Conley Tyler, M., Katsh, E., Choi, D. (eds.): Proceedings of the Third
Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution, Melbourne, Australia, 5-6 July 2004,
http://www.odr.info/unforum2004/thiessen_zeleznikow.htm
4. Lodder, A., Thiessen, E. “Artificial Intelligence and ODR”, in Katsh, E., Choi, E.:
Proceedings of the United Nations Forum on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR):
Technology as the “Fourth Party”, Palais des Nations, Geneva, June 30 - July 1, 2003,
http://www.odr.info/unece2003/
5. Gordon, T.F., Märker, O.: "Mediation Systems", in Märker, O., Trénel, M. (eds.): Neue
Medien in Der Konfliktvermittlung - Mit Beispielen Aus Politik Und Wirtschaft. Berlin:
Edition Sigma, 2002. 61-84.
6. Kersten, G., Lai, H.: Negotiation Support and E-negotiation Systems: An Overview. Group
Decision and Negotiation 16: 553--586 (2007)
7. Rule, C.: Making Peace on eBay: Resolving Disputes in the World’s Largest Marketplace.
ACResolution, Fall 2008: 8--11 (2008)
8. Hattotuwa, S.: The Future of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR): Technologies to Keep an
Eye On. In 2008 Online Dispute Resolution Forum, June 22, 2008,
http://ict4peace.wordpress.com/2008/06/
9. Poblet, M.: Bringing a New Vision to Online Dispute Resolution. In: Poblet, M. (ed.)
Expanding the Horizons of ODR: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Online
Dispute Resolution (ODR Workshop’08). CEUR-Workshop Proceeding Series, vol. 430, pp.
1--7 (2008), http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-430/
10.Casanovas, P., Poblet, M.: Concepts and Fields of Relational Justice. In P. Casanovas, G.
Sartor, N. Casellas, R. Rubino (eds.) Computable Models of the Law: Languages, Dialogue,
Games, Ontologies. LNAI, vol. 4884, pp. 323-339. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
11.Herrman, M.S., Hollett, N., Gale, J. Mediation from Beginning to End: A Testable Model.
In M.S. Herrman (ed.) The Blackwell Handbook of Mediation: Bridging Theory, Research,
and Practice, pp. 19--78. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA (2006)
12.Alexander, N.: The Mediation Metamodel: Understanding Practice. Conflict Resolution
Quarterly 26 (1): 97--125 (2008)
13.Poblet, M., Casanovas, P.: Emotions in ODR. International Review of Law, Computers &
Technology 21 (2), 145--156 (2007)
14.Gruber, T.: Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing.
International Journal Human-Computer Studies 43 (5-6), 907--928 (1995)
15.Walton, D., Godden, D.M.: Persuasion Dialogue in Online Dispute Resolution. AI and Law
13, 273–295 (2005)
16.Tamma, V., Phelps, S., Dickinson, I., Wooldridge, M.: Ontologies for Supporting
Negotiation in e-Commerce. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 18, 223–236
(2005)
17. Ermolayev, V., Keberle, N., Tolok, V.: OIL Ontologies for Collaborative Task Performance
in Coalitions of Self-Interested Actors. In: Arisawa, H., Kambayashi, Y., Kumar, V., Mayr,
H.C., Hunt, I. (eds.) ER Workshops 2001. LNCS, vol. 2465, pp. 390–402. Springer,
Heidelberg (2002)
18.Anumba, C.J., Ren, Z., Thorpe, A., Ugwu, O.O., Newnham, L.: Negotiation within a
Multiagent System for the Collaborative Design of Light Industrial Buildings. Advances in
Engineering Software 34, 389–401 (2003)
19.Tanev, H., Wennerberg, P.: Learning to Populate an Ontology of Politically Motivated
Violent Events. In: F. Fogelman-Soulié et al. (eds.) Mining Massive Data Sets for Security,
pp. 311—322. Ios Press, Amsterdam (2008)
20.Smart, P.R., Russell, A., Shadbolt, N.R., Schaefel, M.C., Carr, L.: A Technical
Demonstrator System For Enhanced Situation Awareness. The Computer Journal 50 (6),
703—716 (2007)
21.BEST Project, http://www.best-project.nl/index.shtml
22.Cevenini, C., Fioriglio, G. ICT-Supported Dispute Resolution. In: In P. Casanovas, G.
Sartor, N. Casellas, R. Rubino (eds.) Computable Models of the Law: Languages, Dialogue,
Games, Ontologies. LNAI, vol. 4884, pp. 312-322. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
23.CEN Workshop on Standardization of Online Dispute Resolution Tools,
http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/businessdomains/businessdomains/isss/activity/ws_odr.asp
24. CEN [Draft] Workshop Agreement on Standardisation of Online Dispute Resolution Tools
(open to comments, final version to be published on June 2009), 2009-02-16,
http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/businessdomains/businessdomains/isss/activity/draftcwaodrstand
v31.pdf
25.White Book on Mediation in Catalonia, http://
http://idt.uab.es/llibreblanc/index.php?lang=english
26. Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M., and Corcho, O. Ontological Engineering. With
examples from the areas of Knowledge Management, e-Commerce and the Semantic Web.
Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing. Springer-Verlag, London. (2003).
27. Sure, Y. and Studer, R. A methodology for ontology-based knowledge management. In
Davies, J., Fensel, D., and van Harmelen, F., editors, Towards the Semantic Web. Ontology-
driven Knowledge Management, pages 33–46. John Wiley & Sons, LTD, Chichester,
England (2003).
28. Kotis, K. and Vouros, A. Human-centered ontology engineering: The HCOME
methodology. Knowledge and Information Systems, 10(1):109–131 (2006).
29. Nicola, A. D., Missikoff, M., and Navigli, R. A proposal for a unified process for ontology
building: UPON. In Andersen, K. V., Debenham, J. K., and Wagner, R., editors, Database
and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA), volume 3588 of Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, pages 655–664. Springer (2005).
30. Casellas, N. Modelling Legal Knowledge Through Ontologies. OPJK: the Ontology of
Professional Judicial Knowledge. PhD thesis, Faculty of Law, Universitat Autònoma de
Barcelona, Barcelona (2008).
31. Terziev, I., Kiryakov, A., and Manov, D. (2005). D1.8.1 base upper-level ontology (bulo)
guidance. SEKT IST-2003-506826 Deliverable 1.8.1, SEKT, EU-IST Project IST-2003-
506826, Ontotext Lab, Sirma Group (Bulgaria).
32. Breuker, J., Hoekstra, R., Boer, A., van den Berg, K., Rubino, R., Sartor, G., Palmirani, M.,
Wyner, A., and Bench-Capon, T. (2007). Owl ontology of basic legal concepts (lkif-core).
Deliverable 1.4 D.1.4, ESTRELLA project (IST-2004-027655).
33. Gangemi, A., Sagri, M.-T., and Tiscornia, D. (2005). A constructive framework for legal
ontologies. In Benjamins et al. (2005b), pages 97–124.
34.Casanovas, P., Casellas, N., Vallbé, J.J. “An ontology-based decision support system for
judges”. A P. Casanovas, J. Breuker, M. Klein i E. Francesconi (eds.), Channelling the legal
information flood. Legal ontologies and the Semantic Web, Volume 188, Frontiers in
Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press: Amsterdam, (2009) pp. 165-176 (ISBN
978-1-58603-942-4).
35.Poblet, M., Vallbé, J.J., Casellas, N., Casanovas, P.: Judges as IT Users: The Iuriservice
Example. In A. Cerrillo and P. Fabra (eds.) E-justice: Using Information Communication
Technologies in the Court System, pp. 38 – 56. IGI-Global, USA (2008)
36.Iqbal, R., Gatward, R.A., James, A.E.: A General Approach to Ethnographic Analysis for
Systems Design. In: Proceedings of SIGDOC 2005, pp. 34--40. ACM, Coventry, UK (2005)
37.Poblet, M.: Mediació i Tecnologia: Estat de l’Art. Deliverable ET.11.1 of the White Book
on Mediation in Catalonia (2008)