This repository contais the complete documentation of the proposed ontology. As an ongoing work, this ontology is one of the efforts towards the representation of a framework to foster the legal interoperability within International Data Spaces (IDS). The Legal Interoperability Ontology for International Data Spaces (LegIOn-IDS) provides a domain description, and formalizes knowledge regarding the legal nuances envolved in a contract, based on the IDS architecture. It follows the fair principles, and reuses several top-level and domain ontologies. We also provide an archive repository with all available work (systematic literature review, position papers, etc.).
.
├── README.md
├── legion_ref_ontology (Reference Ontology) # Latest version: v1.0.
├── legion_operational_ontology (Operational Ontology) # Latest version: v1.1.
├── ISO_dictionary (Glossary of terms, providing ISO reuse) # Latest version: v1.0.
├── owl_docs (Generated OWL documentation) # Latest version: v1.0.
(SUÁREZ-FIGUEROA; GÓMEZ-PÉREZ; VILLAZÓN-TERRAZAS, 2009) propose a systematic approach to document and set goals, granularity, and vocabulary for the proposed ontology.
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
As methodology for ontology development, we are grounded by the Systematic Approach for Building Ontologies (SABiO). The selected framework for ontology development SABiO describes the Ontology development process in five development phases, and five support processes, that are made to refine the phases without a sequential overflow (FALBO, 2014)
Source: (FALBO,2014)
The Complete lifecycle development of LegIOn-IDS is summarized below:
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
CQ1 (Informal): What are the legal entitlements of the service provider X? (GRIFFO et al., 2021)
CQ1(Formal):
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Observation: As a placeholder in the question, X is represented by 1 in this example. Hence, retrieving the legal entitlements of the service provider 1, for exemplification.
CQ2 (Informal): What are the legal burdens/lacks of the service provider X? (GRIFFO et al., 2021b)
CQ2(Formal):
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Observation: As a placeholder in the question, X is represented by 1 in this example. Hence, retrieving the legal burdens/lacks of the service provider 1, for exemplification
CQ3 (Informal): What are the legal entitlements of the service consumer X? (GRIFFO et al., 2021)
CQ3(Formal):
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Observation: As a placeholder in the question, X is represented by 1 in this example. Hence, retrieving the legal entitlements of the service consumer 1, for exemplification.
CQ4 (Informal): What are the legal burdens/lacks of the service consumer X?(GRIFFO et al., 2021)
CQ4(Formal):
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Observation: As a placeholder in the question, X is represented by 1 in this example. Hence, retrieving the legal burdens/lacks of the service consumer 1, for exemplification.
CQ5 (Informal): What are the Interoperability barriers in the service contract X?(EIF)
CQ5(Formal):
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Observation: As a placeholder in the question, X is represented by 1 in this example. Hence, retrieving the interoperability barriers of the service contract 1, for exemplification.
CQ6 (Informal): What contracts represent joint controllership? (EIF)
CQ6(Formal):
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Observation: The outcome is composed of the contracts characterized by the purpose of joint controllership.
CQ7 (Informal): What are the data user’s permissions and duties? (BADER et al., 2020)
CQ7(Formal)(permissions):
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
and CQ7(Formal)(duties):
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Observation: Similarly, we propose the requiring of a specific data user, in this example, we retrieved the duties and permission of the service consumer (which is the data user) 2.
CQ8 (Informal): What contracts characterize data rent? (RAM)
CQ8(Formal):
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Observation: The outcome is composed of the contracts of type Data Rent, which is defined as data as a service.
CQ9 (Informal): WWhat contracts characterize data purchase (RAM)?
CQ9(Formal):
Source: Original Authorship (2024)
Observation: The outcome is composed of the contracts of type Data Purchase.
BADER, S.; PULLMANN, J.; MADER, C.; TRAMP, S.; QUIX, C.; MüLLER, A.; AKYüREK, H.; BöCKMANN, M.; IMBUSCH, B.; THEISSEN-LIPP, J.; GEISLER, S.; LANGE, C. The International Data Spaces Information Model – An Ontology for Sovereign Exchange of Digital Content. In: . [S.l.: s.n.], 2020. p. 176–192. ISBN 978-3-030-62465-1.
FALBO, R. de A. Sabio: Systematic approach for building ontologies. Onto. Com/odise@ Fois, v. 1301, 2014.
GRIFFO, C.; ALMEIDA, J. P. A.; GUIZZARDI, G.; NARDI, J. C. Service contract modeling in Enterprise Architecture: An ontology-based approach. Information Systems, v. 101, p. 101454, nov. 2021. ISSN 0306-4379. Available in: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030643791930506X
SUáREZ-FIGUEROA, M.; GOMEZ-PEREZ, A.; TERRAZAS, B. V. How to Write and Use the Ontology Requirements Specification Document. [S.l.: s.n.], 2009. v. 5871. 982 p. ISBN 978-3-642-05150-0.