WO2018184427A1 - 一种推荐司法知识的方法及装置 - Google Patents

一种推荐司法知识的方法及装置 Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2018184427A1
WO2018184427A1 PCT/CN2018/076617 CN2018076617W WO2018184427A1 WO 2018184427 A1 WO2018184427 A1 WO 2018184427A1 CN 2018076617 W CN2018076617 W CN 2018076617W WO 2018184427 A1 WO2018184427 A1 WO 2018184427A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
case
standard
focus
semantic relationship
judicial knowledge
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/CN2018/076617
Other languages
English (en)
French (fr)
Inventor
贾炜
舒怡
石鹏
Original Assignee
北京国双科技有限公司
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by 北京国双科技有限公司 filed Critical 北京国双科技有限公司
Publication of WO2018184427A1 publication Critical patent/WO2018184427A1/zh

Links

Images

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F16/00—Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor

Definitions

  • the present application relates to the field of judicial knowledge technology, and in particular to a method and apparatus for recommending judicial knowledge.
  • Judges, lawyers, and parties to the case need to obtain judicial knowledge of existing cases similar to the target case when dealing with a target case.
  • the judicial knowledge includes case descriptions, dispute resolution descriptions, applicable case referee rules, Applicable laws and regulations, as well as case judgment documents.
  • a method of obtaining judicial knowledge of an existing case similar to the target case generally by a judge, a lawyer, or a party who handles the target case, using the knowledge of the knowledge to analyze the case information of the target case in depth and summarize The facts of the target case and the focus of the case dispute, and using legal keywords, retrieved from the legal knowledge base, and obtained judicial knowledge of existing cases similar to the target case.
  • the above method for retrieving judicial knowledge requires the user (judge, lawyer, or party, etc.) to be familiar with the organization of the legal knowledge base, and can use the legal knowledge to accurately summarize the facts of the target case and the focus of the case, and use accurate
  • the search for legal keywords is too high for the user's judicial expertise, resulting in poor general applicability of the method.
  • the technical problem solved by the present invention is to provide a method and a device for recommending judicial knowledge, and to realize an intelligent technical solution for recommending judicial knowledge by recording the semantic relationship between judicial knowledge.
  • a method of recommending judicial knowledge comprising:
  • the standard dispute focus of finding the semantic matching with the target case data is taken as the focus of the first standard dispute from the preset judicial knowledge map, and the preset judicial knowledge map includes the focus of the standard dispute, and the reference of the standard dispute focus is applied.
  • a referee rule, the law and regulation clause to which the referee rule applies a first semantic relationship, and a second semantic relationship, the first semantic relationship including a semantic relationship between the standard dispute focus and the reference referee rule,
  • the second semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the reference referee rule and the law and regulation provisions;
  • the legal knowledge and regulations applicable to the first reference referee rule are obtained in the judicial knowledge map as the first law and regulation provisions.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case dispute focus of an existing case, a standard dispute focus to which the case dispute focus belongs, and a third semantic relationship, the third semantic relationship including the case The semantic relationship between the focus of the dispute and the focus of the standard dispute, the method further comprising:
  • the first case dispute focus included in the second standard dispute focus is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of the existing case, and the method further includes:
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case dispute focus of the existing case, a case referee rule to which the case dispute focus applies, and a fourth semantic relationship, where the fourth semantic relationship includes The semantic relationship between the focus of the case dispute and the refereeing rule of the case, the method further includes:
  • the first case referee rule applicable to the first case dispute focus is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of the existing case, and the method further includes:
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case referee rule of the existing case, a reference referee rule to which the case referee rule belongs, and a fifth semantic relationship, where the fifth semantic relationship includes The semantic relationship between the case referee rule and the reference referee rule, the method further comprising:
  • the first reference referee rule to which the first case referee rule belongs is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of an existing case, a case fact description of the existing case, a standard fact description of the case fact description, and a sixth semantic relationship
  • the sixth semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the case fact description and the standard fact description
  • the method further includes:
  • the method further includes:
  • the second standard fact description is output.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a correspondence between the standard fact description and a standard fact template, and the method further includes:
  • the third standard dispute focus the fourth case dispute focus, the third case referee rule, the second reference referee rule, and the second law and regulation provision generating referee Instruments.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a correspondence between the judicial knowledge and the keyword of the judicial knowledge
  • the judicial knowledge includes the standard dispute focus, the reference referee rule, the law and regulation a clause, the standard fact description, and any one or more of the standard fact templates, the method further comprising:
  • An apparatus for recommending judicial knowledge comprising:
  • a semantic analysis unit configured to acquire target case data of the target case, and perform semantic analysis on the target case data
  • a first searching unit configured to search for a standard dispute focus that is semantically matched with the target case data from a preset judicial knowledge map as a first standard dispute focus, where the preset judicial knowledge map includes a standard dispute focus a reference referee rule to which the standard dispute focus applies, the legal and regulatory provisions applicable to the reference referee rule, the first semantic relationship, and the second semantic relationship, the first semantic relationship including the standard dispute focus and the reference referee rule a semantic relationship between the second semantic relationship including a semantic relationship between the reference referee rule and the law and regulation provisions;
  • a first obtaining unit configured to obtain, by using the first semantic relationship, a reference referee rule applicable to the first standard dispute focus from the preset judicial knowledge map as a first reference referee rule, and using the second Semantic relationship, the law and regulations applicable to the first reference referee rule are obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map as the first law and regulation provisions.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case dispute focus of an existing case, a standard dispute focus to which the case dispute focus belongs, and a third semantic relationship, the third semantic relationship including the case
  • the semantic relationship between the focus of the dispute and the focus of the standard dispute the device further includes:
  • a second acquiring unit configured to acquire a second standard dispute focus selected from the first standard dispute focus
  • a third acquiring unit configured to obtain, by using the third semantic relationship, a first case dispute focus included in the second standard dispute focus from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of the existing case, and the device further includes:
  • a fourth obtaining unit configured to acquire a second case dispute focus selected from the first case dispute focus
  • a first determining unit configured to determine, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a first existing set of cases to which the second case dispute focus belongs;
  • a fifth acquiring unit configured to acquire a second existing case set selected from the first existing case set
  • a sixth obtaining unit configured to obtain the existing case data of the second existing case set from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case dispute focus of the existing case, a case referee rule to which the case dispute focus applies, and a fourth semantic relationship, where the fourth semantic relationship includes The semantic relationship between the focus of the case dispute and the refereeing rule of the case, the device further includes:
  • a seventh acquiring unit configured to obtain, by using the fourth semantic relationship, a first case referee rule applicable to the first case dispute focus from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of the existing case, and the device further includes:
  • An eighth obtaining unit configured to acquire a second case referee rule selected from the first case referee rule
  • a second determining unit configured to determine, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a third existing case set to which the second case referee rule belongs;
  • a ninth obtaining unit configured to acquire a fourth existing case set selected from the third existing case set
  • a tenth acquiring unit configured to obtain the existing case data of the fourth existing case set from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case referee rule of the existing case, a reference referee rule to which the case referee rule belongs, and a fifth semantic relationship, where the fifth semantic relationship includes The semantic relationship between the case referee rule and the reference referee rule, the device further includes:
  • the eleventh obtaining unit is configured to obtain, by using the fifth semantic relationship, the first reference referee rule to which the first case referee rule belongs from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of an existing case, a case fact description of the existing case, a standard fact description of the case fact description, and a sixth semantic relationship
  • the sixth semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the case fact description and the standard fact description
  • the apparatus further includes:
  • a second searching unit configured to search, from the preset judicial knowledge map, the first existing case set data that matches the semantics of the target case data
  • a third determining unit configured to determine, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a fifth existing case set to which the first existing case set data belongs;
  • a twelfth obtaining unit configured to obtain, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a first case fact description of the fifth existing case set
  • a thirteenth obtaining unit configured to obtain, by using the sixth semantic relationship, a first standard fact description to which the first case fact description belongs from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the apparatus further includes:
  • a statistical unit configured to count the number of occurrences of each of the first standard fact descriptions
  • a fourteenth obtaining unit configured to acquire the first standard fact description that is the most frequently occurring as a second standard fact description
  • An output unit configured to output the second standard fact description.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map further includes a correspondence between the standard fact description and a standard fact template
  • the apparatus further includes:
  • a fifteenth obtaining unit configured to acquire a third standard fact description selected from the first standard fact description
  • a sixteenth obtaining unit configured to obtain, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a standard fact template corresponding to the third standard fact description as a target standard fact template;
  • a seventeenth obtaining unit configured to obtain, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a case dispute focus of the fifth existing case set as a focus of the third case dispute;
  • the eighteenth obtaining unit is configured to obtain a focus of the fourth case selected from the focus of the third case dispute;
  • a nineteenth obtaining unit configured to obtain, by using the third semantic relationship, a standard dispute focus of the fourth case dispute focus from the preset judicial knowledge map as a third standard dispute focus;
  • a twentieth acquiring unit configured to obtain, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a case referee rule of the fifth existing case set as a second case referee rule;
  • a twenty-first obtaining unit configured to acquire a third case referee rule selected from the second case referee rule
  • a twenty-second obtaining unit configured to obtain, by using the fifth semantic relationship, a reference referee rule to which the third case referee rule belongs as the second reference referee rule from the preset judicial knowledge map;
  • a twenty-third obtaining unit configured to obtain, by using the second semantic relationship, the law and regulations applicable to the second reference referee rule from the preset judicial knowledge map as the second law and regulation provisions;
  • a generating unit configured to utilize the target standard fact template, the third standard dispute focus, the fourth case dispute focus, the third case referee rule, the second reference referee rule, and the second Laws and regulations provide for judgment documents.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a correspondence between the judicial knowledge and the keyword of the judicial knowledge
  • the judicial knowledge includes the standard dispute focus, the reference referee rule, the law and regulation The article, the standard fact description, and any one or more of the standard fact templates
  • the device further includes:
  • a twenty-fourth obtaining unit configured to acquire a keyword
  • a third searching unit configured to search, according to the keyword, the judicial knowledge corresponding to the keyword from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • a model of a judicial knowledge map comprising:
  • a first semantic module configured to store a first semantic relationship, where the first semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the standard dispute focus and the reference referee rule;
  • a second semantic module configured to store a second semantic relationship, where the second semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the reference refereeing rule and the legal and legal provisions.
  • the model further includes:
  • a third semantic module a fourth semantic module, a fifth semantic module, a sixth semantic module, and any one or more of the template modules;
  • a third semantic module configured to store a third semantic relationship, where the third semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the focus of the case dispute and the focus of the standard dispute;
  • a fourth semantic module configured to store a fourth semantic relationship, where the fourth semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the focus of the case dispute and the case referee rule;
  • a fifth semantic module configured to store a fifth semantic relationship, where the fifth semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the case referee rule and the reference referee rule;
  • a sixth semantic module configured to store a sixth semantic relationship, where the sixth semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the case fact description and the standard fact description
  • the template module configured to store the preset judicial knowledge map, further includes a correspondence between the standard fact description and a standard fact template.
  • a storage medium having stored thereon a program that, when executed by a processor, implements the method of recommending judicial knowledge as described above.
  • a processor for running a program the program executing the method of recommending judicial knowledge as described above.
  • the present invention has the following beneficial effects:
  • the embodiment of the invention provides a method and a device for recommending judicial knowledge, obtains target case data of a target case, performs semantic analysis on the target case data, and finds a standard dispute focus of semantic matching with the target case data from a preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the reference referee rule applicable to the first standard dispute focus is obtained as the first reference referee rule
  • the laws and regulations applicable to the first reference referee rule are obtained as the first law and regulation provisions.
  • the default judicial knowledge map includes the focus of standard disputes, the reference referee rules applicable to the standard dispute focus, the laws and regulations applicable to the referee rules, the first semantic relationship, and the second semantic relationship, using the techniques of semantic analysis and semantic matching.
  • FIG. 1 is a flowchart of an example of a method for recommending judicial knowledge according to an embodiment of the present invention
  • FIG. 2 is a flowchart of an example 2 of a method for recommending judicial knowledge according to an embodiment of the present invention
  • FIG. 3 is a flowchart of three methods for recommending judicial knowledge according to an embodiment of the present invention
  • FIG. 4 is a flow chart of a method for recommending judicial knowledge according to an embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 5 is a flowchart of a fifth example of a method for recommending judicial knowledge according to an embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 6 is a flowchart of a sixth method for recommending judicial knowledge according to an embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 7 is a schematic structural diagram of a judicial knowledge map provided by an embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 8 is a schematic structural diagram of an apparatus for recommending judicial knowledge according to an embodiment of the present invention.
  • the embodiment of the invention provides a preset judicial knowledge map, and the judicial knowledge map defines the semantic relationship between judicial knowledge.
  • the judicial knowledge map is based on a large number of existing case data of existing cases, and the judicial knowledge map technology experts use intelligent identification and annotation techniques to classify and extract the required judicial knowledge from a large number of existing case data. The judicial experts then professionally summarize and revise the extracted judicial knowledge, thus establishing the semantic relationship between judicial knowledge. The details are described below.
  • the judicial knowledge map includes a standard dispute focus, a reference referee rule to which the standard dispute focus applies, a reference to the applicable law and regulations provisions of the referee rule, a first semantic relationship, and a second semantic relationship, the first semantic relationship including a standard dispute
  • the semantic relationship between the focus and the reference referee rule, and the second semantic relationship includes the semantic relationship between the referee rule and the legal and regulatory provisions.
  • the focus of the standard dispute is the focus of disputes identified and issued by the judiciary (eg, courts, procuratorates).
  • the focus of the standard dispute may be the formal expression of the dispute as the focus of the dispute, as summarized or determined by the court or the procuratorate.
  • the focus of the standard dispute may also be based on the actual judge or lawyer.
  • the summary of the case, which is determined by the court or the procuratorate, is the normative expression of the focus of the dispute.
  • the refereeing rules are the referee rules officially recognized and issued by the judicial department. Similar to the focus of the standard dispute, in one case, the reference referee rule may be summarized and confirmed by the court or the procuratorate according to the actual case, as a normative expression of the referee rule; in another case, the reference referee rule may also be If the judge or lawyer sums up according to the actual case, it shall be determined by the court or the procuratorate as the normative expression of the rules of the referee.
  • the provisions of laws and regulations may be: the laws enacted by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China and its Standing Committee, the legal interpretation of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the judicial interpretations made by the Supreme People's Court or the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the State Council of the People's Republic of China.
  • Administrative regulations formulated, local regulations, autonomous regulations, and separate regulations formulated by the people's congresses of the provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the people's governments of the provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the central government, and larger municipalities, as well as the State Council departments, committees, and China Regulations formulated by the People's Bank of China, the National Audit Office and the directly affiliated institutions with administrative functions.
  • provisions of the laws and regulations may also be provisions of laws and regulations promulgated and used by other countries or regions.
  • the above and the following explanations are only for the purpose of visually giving a specific example description of the provisions of laws and regulations.
  • provisions of laws and regulations may also be provisions of laws and regulations promulgated and used by other countries or regions.
  • the first semantic relationship characterizes the focus of the standard dispute and the semantic relationship between the reference referee rules to which the standard dispute focus applies.
  • the second semantic relationship characterizes the reference referee rule and the semantic relationship between the laws and regulations applicable to the reference referee rule.
  • the standard dispute focus of the predetermined judicial knowledge map matching the semantics of the target case data is searched, and then obtained according to the first semantic relationship and the second semantic relationship.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map includes not only the above-mentioned standard dispute focus, the reference referee rule to which the standard dispute focus applies, the legal and regulatory provisions applicable to the referee rule, the first semantic relationship, and the second semantic relationship.
  • the first semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the standard dispute focus and the reference referee rule
  • the second semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the reference referee rule and the legal and regulatory provisions, and includes any one or more of the following contents. :
  • the third semantic relationship includes the semantic relationship between the focus of the case dispute and the focus of the standard dispute;
  • the fourth semantic relationship includes the semantic relationship between the focus of the case dispute and the case referee rule;
  • the case referee rule of the existing case the reference referee rule to which the case referee rule belongs, and the fifth semantic relationship, and the fifth semantic relationship includes the semantic relationship between the case referee rule and the reference referee rule;
  • the preset judicial knowledge map includes, in addition to the above-mentioned standard dispute focus, the reference referee rule applicable to the standard dispute focus, the reference to the applicable laws and regulations, the first semantic relationship, and the content of the second semantic relationship. Any one of the above contents 1 to 5 may be included, and any of the above-mentioned contents 1 to 5 (N is less than five) may be included, and all of the contents 1 to 5 may be included. It can be specifically set by a technician according to actual needs, and is not specifically limited here. It can be understood that the more content contained in the pre-established judicial knowledge map, the more judicial knowledge that can be obtained according to the target case data related to the target case.
  • the first semantic relationship, the second semantic relationship, the third semantic relationship, the fourth semantic relationship, and the fifth semantic relationship included in the judicial knowledge map are exemplified:
  • the case number in Table 2 can uniquely identify an existing case, and the existing case data of the existing case can be obtained according to the case number.
  • the focus of the case dispute is the focus of the dispute in the existing case.
  • the focus of the standard dispute is the focus of the standard disputes that the focus of the case in the existing case belongs to.
  • the refereeing rules are the refereeing rules of existing cases.
  • the referee rule is the standard referee rule to which the case referee rule of the existing case belongs, and is also the reference referee rule applicable to the standard dispute focus.
  • the provisions of laws and regulations are the provisions of laws and regulations that apply to the rules of the referee.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map includes, in addition to the above, a correspondence between a standard fact description and a standard fact template.
  • a standard fact description corresponds to a standard fact template, which is a standard description of a class of facts, while a standard fact template represents a standard fact description in a template form. Knowing the target case data of the target case, searching for the factual description of the case matching the semantics of the target case data from the preset judicial knowledge map, and obtaining the standard fact description of the case fact description according to the sixth semantic relationship, and further Obtain the standard fact template corresponding to the standard fact description.
  • the judicial knowledge related to the target case is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map (including standard dispute focus, case dispute focus, case referee rule, reference referee rule, legal and regulatory provisions), according to the user Judicial knowledge selected in the above judicial knowledge is automatically generated using the standard fact template.
  • the pre-established judicial knowledge map includes, in addition to the above, a correspondence between judicial knowledge and keywords of the judicial knowledge, judicial knowledge includes standard dispute focus, reference referee rules, laws and regulations, and standard facts. Description, and any one or more of the standard fact templates. Therefore, the judicial knowledge corresponding to the keyword can also be searched from the preset intellectual property map according to the keyword.
  • the pre-established judicial knowledge map may also include legal common sense data, which includes domestically established courts, hierarchical relationships between various courts, and administrative areas under the jurisdiction of each court.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map provided in the embodiment of the present invention defines a large amount of judicial knowledge and a semantic relationship between judicial knowledge.
  • Using the pre-set judicial knowledge map it is possible to intelligently recommend judicial knowledge related to the target case. There is no need for the user to summarize the keywords from the case data of the target case, and thus the user does not have to have a high level of judicial knowledge, so that the universal applicability is high.
  • the pre-set judicial knowledge map provided by the embodiment of the present invention is analyzed one by one, and how to implement the judicial knowledge is implemented.
  • FIG. 1 is a flowchart of an example of a method for recommending judicial knowledge according to an embodiment of the present invention, including:
  • Step 101 Obtain target case data of the target case, and perform semantic analysis on the target case data.
  • Step 102 Find a standard dispute focus that matches the semantics of the target case data from a preset judicial knowledge map as a focus of the first standard dispute.
  • Step 103 Acquire, by using the first semantic relationship, a reference referee rule applicable to the first standard dispute focus from the preset judicial knowledge map as a first reference referee rule, and use the second semantic relationship to The predetermined judicial knowledge map obtains the provisions of laws and regulations applicable to the first reference referee rule as the first law and regulation provisions.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map includes the focus of the standard dispute, the reference referee rule to which the standard dispute focus applies, the legal and regulatory provisions applicable to the referee rule, the first semantic relationship, and the second semantic relationship
  • a semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between a standard dispute focus and a reference referee rule
  • the second semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the reference referee rule and the legal and regulatory provisions.
  • the target case refers to a case in which the case has been filed, the content of the response, and the content of the trial debate.
  • Semantic analysis of the target case data is performed by any semantic analysis method in the prior art.
  • the target case data is semantically matched with the standard dispute focus in the preset judicial knowledge map, and the standard dispute focus that matches the target case data semantics is found as the focus of the first standard dispute.
  • the case data includes the information of the case, the reason of the case, the claim of the plaintiff or the appellant, the content of the court or the appele's reply, the evidence materials, the transcript of the case, the focus of the case, the rules of the case, the case Applicable laws and regulations, the outcome of the case.
  • the existing case data also includes the judgment documents of the existing case.
  • the target case data only includes the above case data, excluding the judgment documents.
  • a first threshold is defined in advance. If the matching degree between the target case data and the semantics of the standard dispute focus exceeds the first threshold, indicating that the target case data matches the semantics of the standard dispute focus, the standard dispute focus is Belonging to the focus of this first standard dispute.
  • the standard dispute focus includes the name of the standard dispute focus, and the description content of the standard dispute focus, and the target case data and the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the standard dispute focus is semantic matching, which refers to the semantic matching of the target case data with the description content of the standard dispute focus.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map includes a first semantic relationship, and the first semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the standard dispute focus and the reference referee rule.
  • the first semantic relationship represents the reference referee rule applicable to the standard dispute focus, and the first reference relationship is used to obtain the reference referee rule applicable to the first standard dispute focus as the first reference referee rule.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map includes a second semantic relationship, and the second semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the reference referee rules and the laws and regulations.
  • the second semantic relationship characterizes the laws and regulations applicable to the referee rule, and uses the second semantic relationship to obtain the provisions of the first law and regulations applicable to the first reference referee rule.
  • the second semantic relationship all the laws and regulations applicable to the first reference referee rule can be obtained.
  • the required reference referee rules may be selected from the first reference referee rules, and only the second semantic relationship is used to obtain the laws and regulations applicable to the selected reference referee rules.
  • the target case data is semantically matched with the standard dispute focus in the preset judicial knowledge map to obtain the first standard dispute focus related to the target case.
  • the user does not need to summarize and analyze the keywords related to the standard dispute focus from the target case data, but the original target case data and the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the standard dispute focus in the semantic matching.
  • the user only inputs the target case data, and does not require the user to have a high level of judicial expertise, and the universal applicability is high.
  • the focus of the first standard dispute obtained by the same target case data is determined. It also avoids the use of the methods provided by the prior art, the different keywords obtained by different users from the same target case data are different, and the focus of the standard disputes obtained is also different.
  • the first reference referee rule applicable to the first standard dispute focus can also be obtained by using the first semantic relationship in the preset judicial knowledge map;
  • the second semantic relationship can obtain the first law and regulation provisions applicable to the first reference referee rule.
  • the user analyzes the summary keywords according to the target case data, uses the keywords to search for reference referee rules and laws and regulations, and only the judges and lawyers with high judicial knowledge can accurately retrieve the relevant cases related to the target case. With reference to the rules of the referee and the applicable laws and regulations, the general applicability is poor.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map also includes the focus of the case dispute in the existing case, the standard dispute focus to which the case dispute focus belongs, and the third semantic relationship,
  • the third semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the focus of the case dispute and the focus of the standard dispute, and the method further includes:
  • Step 201 Acquire a second standard dispute focus selected from the first standard dispute focus.
  • Step 202 Acquire, by using the third semantic relationship, the first case dispute focus included in the second standard dispute focus from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the pre-set judicial knowledge map also includes the focus of the case dispute in the existing case, the standard dispute focus of the case dispute focus, and the third semantic relationship.
  • the focus of the case dispute in the existing case refers to The information obtained from the existing case data corresponds to the focus of the dispute in the specific existing case.
  • the specific content of the focus of the case dispute is related to the content of the existing case data, and it has case differences.
  • the focus of a case dispute belongs to a standard dispute.
  • the standard dispute is officially released by the judicial department, and the standard expression of the focus of the dispute has commonalities. For different existing cases, there are different disputes about the content of the case. If the essence of the content of the dispute is the same, it belongs to the same standard dispute.
  • the third semantic relationship is the focus of the case dispute and the semantic relationship of the standard dispute focus of the dispute focus of the case.
  • the user can select the focus of the standard dispute from the focus of the first standard dispute as the focus of the second standard dispute according to actual needs.
  • the third semantic relationship can be used to obtain the focus of the case dispute contained in the second standard dispute focus from the preset judicial knowledge map as the focus of the first case dispute.
  • the pre-established judicial knowledge map is based on a large number of existing case data. There are a large number of specific descriptions of the disputed focus of the case in the existing judicial knowledge map.
  • the user can select the second standard dispute focus that is of interest, thereby obtaining a specific description of the focus of the first case dispute that belongs to the second standard dispute focus.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of the existing case, and the method further includes:
  • Step 301 Acquire a second case dispute focus selected from the first case dispute focus.
  • Step 302 Determine, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a first existing set of cases to which the second case dispute focus belongs.
  • Step 303 Acquire a second existing case set selected from the first existing case set.
  • Step 304 Obtain existing case data of the second existing case set from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the focus of a case dispute belongs to a specific existing case.
  • the user can select the focus of the case from the focus of the dispute in the first case as the focus of the second case, and determine the existing case in which the focus of the second case belongs.
  • a collection of existing cases The user then selects the existing case concerned from the first existing case set as the second existing case set, and obtains the existing case data of the second existing case set from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the first standard dispute focus is obtained according to the target case data
  • the user selects the second standard dispute focus from the first standard dispute focus, and then uses the third semantic relationship to obtain the second standard dispute.
  • the focus of the first case controversy is included in the focus.
  • the user selects the focus of the second case from the focus of the dispute in the first case, and then determines the first existing case set in the second case dispute focus according to the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the user selects the second existing set of cases from the first existing case set, and obtains the existing case data of the second existing case set from the preset judicial knowledge map. Therefore, the specific case disputes that the user pays attention to can be gradually obtained, as well as the existing case data, and the user can select and view the specific practical content of various existing cases of interest.
  • the pre-established judicial knowledge map can also be used to obtain the existing case data of the existing case, the focus of the case dispute, the standard dispute focus of the case dispute focus, and the standard.
  • the referee rules applicable to the focus of the dispute refer to the laws and regulations applicable to the rules of the referee.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes the focus of the case in the existing case, and the case referee to which the dispute focus is applicable.
  • a rule, and a fourth semantic relationship comprising a semantic relationship between the focus of the case dispute and the case referee rule, the method further comprising:
  • Step 401 Acquire, by using the fourth semantic relationship, a first case referee rule applicable to the first case dispute focus from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map includes not only the focus of the case dispute, but also the case referee rules applicable to the dispute focus of the case.
  • the refereeing rules refer to the rules of referee used in the focus of a case in a specific existing case. Case referee rules are also obtained from existing case data and have case differences.
  • the fourth semantic relationship that is, the semantic relationship between the refereeing rules used to represent the focus of the case dispute and the case where the dispute is applied. According to the fourth semantic relationship, the first case referee rule applicable to the focus of the first case dispute can be obtained, which is convenient for the user to view and refer to.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of the existing case, and the method further includes:
  • the case referee rule is the case referee rule existing in a particular existing case.
  • the pre-established judicial knowledge map can be used to determine the existing case to which the case referee rule belongs.
  • the user may select the case referee rule of interest from the first case referee rule as the second case referee rule, and determine the existing case to which the second case referee rule belongs as the third existing case set from the preset judicial knowledge map. The user then selects the existing case concerned from the third existing case set as the fourth existing case set, and obtains the existing case data of the fourth existing case set from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the second example and the fourth example provide two different methods to obtain the existing case data that the user is concerned about.
  • the case is determined by the focus of the case selected by the user.
  • the existing case data of the existing case; the fourth example is to use the user's selected case referee rules to determine the existing case, and then obtain the existing case data of the existing case. Any of the above methods can be used to obtain the existing case data of the existing case of interest.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case referee rule of the existing case, a reference referee rule to which the case referee rule belongs, and a fifth semantic a relationship, the fifth semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the case referee rule and the reference referee rule, and the method further includes:
  • the first reference referee rule to which the first case referee rule belongs is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the refereeing rules are obtained from the existing case data and correspond to the referee rules existing in the specific existing cases.
  • the specific content of the case refereeing rules is related to the specific content of the existing case data, and has case differences.
  • a case referee rule belongs to a reference referee rule.
  • the refereeing rules are officially issued by the judicial department, and the standard expressions of the refereeing rules have commonalities. For different existing cases, there are different representations of case refereeing rules. If the nature of the case refereeing rules is the same, it belongs to the same standard dispute. That is, when the fifth semantic relationship is used, when the case referee rule is known, the reference referee rule to which the case referee rule belongs can also be obtained.
  • FIG. 5 only shows a method for querying the data content of an existing case related to the target case from the preset judicial knowledge map, and the method shown in FIG. 5 can be separately performed. It can also be used in combination with the method shown in FIG. 1, and is not specifically limited herein.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of an existing case, a case fact description of the existing case, a standard fact description of the case fact description, a sixth semantic relationship, and the sixth semantic
  • the relationship includes a semantic relationship between the case fact description and the standard fact description, and the method further includes:
  • Step 501 Search, from the preset judicial knowledge map, the first existing case set data that matches the semantics of the target case data.
  • Step 502 Determine, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a fifth existing case set to which the first existing case set data belongs.
  • Step 503 Obtain a first case fact description of the fifth existing case set from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • Step 504 Obtain, by using the sixth semantic relationship, a first standard fact description to which the first case fact description belongs from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the factual description of the case is obtained from the existing case data and corresponds to the factual description of the existing existing case, which has case differences.
  • a case fact description belongs to a standard factual description.
  • the standard factual description is officially issued by the judicial department, and the standard expression of factual description has commonalities.
  • the target case data is semantically matched with the existing case data in the preset judicial knowledge map, and the existing case data that is semantically matched with the target case data is obtained as the first existing case set data.
  • a second threshold is defined in advance. If the matching degree between the target case data and the semantics of the existing case data exceeds the second threshold, indicating that the target case data matches the semantics of the existing case data, the existing The case data belongs to the first existing case collection data.
  • the existing case described in the first existing case set data is determined as the fifth existing case set. Obtaining the factual description of the fifth existing case set from the preset judicial knowledge map as the first case fact description, and then using the sixth semantic relationship to obtain the standard fact description of the first case fact description as the first standard fact description.
  • the method further includes:
  • the second standard fact description is output.
  • the first case fact description obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map also has Multiple. Since different case fact descriptions may correspond to the same standard fact description, respectively determine the first standard fact description to which each first case fact description belongs, and count the number of occurrences of each first standard fact description, which will occur most frequently.
  • the first standard fact description describes the output as a second standard fact.
  • a plurality of first standard fact descriptions may be sequentially output in order according to the number of occurrences from high to low. It is also possible to output the number of occurrences of each of the first standard factual descriptions. It is also possible to output a first standard fact description that the user is interested in according to the user's selection.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map further includes a correspondence between the standard fact description and a standard fact template, and the method further includes:
  • Step 601 Acquire a third standard fact description selected from the first standard fact description.
  • Step 602 Obtain a standard fact template corresponding to the third standard fact description from the preset judicial knowledge map as a target standard fact template.
  • Step 603 Obtain a case dispute focus of the fifth existing case set from the preset judicial knowledge map as a focus of the third case dispute.
  • Step 604 Acquire a focus of the fourth case dispute selected from the focus of the third case dispute.
  • Step 605 Using the third semantic relationship, obtain the standard dispute focus of the fourth case dispute focus from the preset judicial knowledge map as the focus of the third standard dispute.
  • the third standard dispute focus the fourth case dispute focus, the third case referee rule, the second reference referee rule, and the second law and regulation provision generating referee Instruments.
  • the method shown in Figure 6 provides a technical solution for automatically generating a referee document.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map includes the correspondence between the standard fact description and the standard fact template.
  • the first existing case collection data is semantically matched with the target case data, and the case fact description of the fifth existing case set to which the first existing case set data belongs is obtained as the first case fact description, and then from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the standard fact description to which the first case fact description belongs is obtained as the first standard fact description.
  • the user selects the standard fact description of interest from the first standard fact description as the third standard fact description.
  • the third standard fact description selected by the user is the standard fact description that is most similar to the target case, and can be used. Describe the specific content of the target case.
  • the standard fact template corresponding to the third standard fact description is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map as the target standard fact template, and the target standard fact template is automatically used to generate the referee document. In the target standard fact template, it is also necessary to add judicial knowledge related to the target case.
  • the fifth existing case set is an existing case that matches the semantics of the target case, and the focus of the case dispute is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map as the focus of the third case dispute, the user from the third In the focus of the case dispute, the focus of the fourth case of concern is selected. Reusing the fourth semantic relationship, the standard dispute focus of the fourth case dispute focus is obtained as the focus of the third standard dispute.
  • the fifth existing case set is an existing case that matches the semantics of the target case.
  • the case referee rule of the fifth existing case set is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map as the third case referee rule, and the second semantic relationship is utilized.
  • the reference referee rule to which the third case referee rule belongs is obtained as the second reference referee rule.
  • the first semantic relationship may be used to obtain the reference referee rule applicable to the third standard dispute focus as the second reference referee rule.
  • Reusing the second semantic relationship to obtain the law and regulations applicable to the second reference referee rule Second law and regulation provisions.
  • the third standard dispute focus, the third standard dispute focus, the fourth case dispute focus, the third case referee rule, the second reference referee rule, and the second law and regulation provisions to generate a referee document, automatically generate a referee document .
  • the content that the user needs to fill out is required to be marked with a special mark.
  • the method for automatically generating a referee document shown in Figure 6 is based on the judicial knowledge provided in the pre-established judicial knowledge map and the semantic relationship between judicial knowledge.
  • the standard fact template used in the standard fact description is defined in the judicial knowledge map. The user selects the required judicial knowledge from the recommended judicial knowledge related to the target case, and automatically fills the judicial knowledge into the standard fact template, thereby automatically generating the referee document.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a correspondence between the judicial knowledge and a keyword of the judicial knowledge, the judicial knowledge including the standard dispute focus, the reference referee rule, The legal and regulatory provisions, the standard factual description, and any one or more of the standard fact templates, the method further comprising:
  • the corresponding relationship between the judicial knowledge and the keyword of the judicial knowledge is also included, and the function of finding the judicial knowledge corresponding to the keyword according to the keyword input by the user is also provided.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map provided by the embodiment of the present invention provides a standard dispute focus, reference referee rules, legal and regulatory provisions, standard fact description, standard fact template, case dispute focus, case reference rule, case fact description , the relationship between the content of the case data and other content, forming a network of map structure, as shown in Figure 7.
  • the pre-established judicial knowledge map can also provide existing case data, case dispute focus, case referee rules and other specific case data of existing cases similar to the target case for the user's reference.
  • FIG. 8 is a schematic structural diagram of an apparatus for recommending judicial knowledge according to an embodiment of the present invention, including:
  • the semantic analysis unit 801 is configured to acquire target case data of the target case, and perform semantic analysis on the target case data.
  • the first searching unit 802 is configured to search, from a preset judicial knowledge map, a standard dispute focus that matches the semantics of the target case data as a first standard dispute focus, where the preset judicial knowledge map includes a standard dispute focus.
  • a reference referee rule to which the standard dispute focus applies the legal and regulatory provisions to which the referee rule applies, a first semantic relationship, and a second semantic relationship, the first semantic relationship including the standard dispute focus and the reference referee
  • the first obtaining unit 803 is configured to obtain, by using the first semantic relationship, a reference referee rule applicable to the first standard dispute focus from the preset judicial knowledge map as a first reference referee rule, by using the first
  • the second semantic relationship is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map as the first law and regulation provisions for the provisions of the first reference referee rules.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case dispute focus of an existing case, a standard dispute focus to which the case dispute focus belongs, and a third semantic relationship, the third semantic relationship including the case
  • the semantic relationship between the focus of the dispute and the focus of the standard dispute the device further includes:
  • a second acquiring unit configured to acquire a second standard dispute focus selected from the first standard dispute focus
  • a third acquiring unit configured to obtain, by using the third semantic relationship, a first case dispute focus included in the second standard dispute focus from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of the existing case, and the device further includes:
  • a fourth obtaining unit configured to acquire a second case dispute focus selected from the first case dispute focus
  • a first determining unit configured to determine, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a first existing set of cases to which the second case dispute focus belongs;
  • a fifth acquiring unit configured to acquire a second existing case set selected from the first existing case set
  • a sixth obtaining unit configured to obtain the existing case data of the second existing case set from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case dispute focus of the existing case, a case referee rule to which the case dispute focus applies, and a fourth semantic relationship, where the fourth semantic relationship includes The semantic relationship between the focus of the case dispute and the refereeing rule of the case, the device further includes:
  • a seventh acquiring unit configured to obtain, by using the fourth semantic relationship, a first case referee rule applicable to the first case dispute focus from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of the existing case, and the device further includes:
  • An eighth obtaining unit configured to acquire a second case referee rule selected from the first case referee rule
  • a second determining unit configured to determine, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a third existing case set to which the second case referee rule belongs;
  • a ninth obtaining unit configured to acquire a fourth existing case set selected from the third existing case set
  • a tenth acquiring unit configured to obtain the existing case data of the fourth existing case set from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case referee rule of the existing case, a reference referee rule to which the case referee rule belongs, and a fifth semantic relationship, where the fifth semantic relationship includes The semantic relationship between the case referee rule and the reference referee rule, the device further includes:
  • the eleventh obtaining unit is configured to obtain, by using the fifth semantic relationship, the first reference referee rule to which the first case referee rule belongs from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of an existing case, a case fact description of the existing case, a standard fact description of the case fact description, and a sixth semantic relationship
  • the sixth semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the case fact description and the standard fact description
  • the apparatus further includes:
  • a second searching unit configured to search, from the preset judicial knowledge map, the first existing case set data that matches the semantics of the target case data
  • a third determining unit configured to determine, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a fifth existing case set to which the first existing case set data belongs;
  • a twelfth obtaining unit configured to obtain, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a first case fact description of the fifth existing case set
  • a thirteenth obtaining unit configured to obtain, by using the sixth semantic relationship, a first standard fact description to which the first case fact description belongs from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the apparatus further includes:
  • a statistical unit configured to count the number of occurrences of each of the first standard fact descriptions
  • a fourteenth obtaining unit configured to obtain the first standard fact description with the most occurrences as a second standard factual description
  • An output unit configured to output the second standard fact description.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map further includes a correspondence between the standard fact description and a standard fact template
  • the apparatus further includes:
  • a fifteenth obtaining unit configured to acquire a third standard fact description selected from the first standard fact description
  • a sixteenth obtaining unit configured to obtain, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a standard fact template corresponding to the third standard fact description as a target standard fact template;
  • a seventeenth obtaining unit configured to obtain, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a case dispute focus of the fifth existing case set as a focus of the third case dispute;
  • the eighteenth obtaining unit is configured to obtain a focus of the fourth case selected from the focus of the third case dispute;
  • a nineteenth obtaining unit configured to obtain, by using the third semantic relationship, a standard dispute focus of the fourth case dispute focus from the preset judicial knowledge map as a third standard dispute focus;
  • a twentieth acquiring unit configured to obtain, from the preset judicial knowledge map, a case referee rule of the fifth existing case set as a second case referee rule;
  • a twenty-first obtaining unit configured to acquire a third case referee rule selected from the second case referee rule
  • a twenty-second obtaining unit configured to obtain, by using the fifth semantic relationship, a reference referee rule to which the third case referee rule belongs as the second reference referee rule from the preset judicial knowledge map;
  • a twenty-third obtaining unit configured to obtain, by using the second semantic relationship, the law and regulations applicable to the second reference referee rule from the preset judicial knowledge map as the second law and regulation provisions;
  • a generating unit configured to utilize the target standard fact template, the third standard dispute focus, the fourth case dispute focus, the third case referee rule, the second reference referee rule, and the second Laws and regulations provide for judgment documents.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a correspondence between the judicial knowledge and the keyword of the judicial knowledge
  • the judicial knowledge includes the standard dispute focus, the reference referee rule, the law and regulation The article, the standard fact description, and any one or more of the standard fact templates
  • the device further includes:
  • a twenty-fourth obtaining unit configured to acquire a keyword
  • a third searching unit configured to search, according to the keyword, the judicial knowledge corresponding to the keyword from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the device of the judicial knowledge map shown in FIG. 8 is a device corresponding to the method of the judicial knowledge map shown in FIG. 1 to FIG. 7, and the specific implementation is similar to the method shown in FIG. 1 to FIG. 7, with reference to FIG. 1 to FIG. The description of the method shown in FIG. 7 will not be repeated here.
  • Embodiments of the present invention also provide a model of a judicial knowledge map, including:
  • a first semantic module configured to store a first semantic relationship, where the first semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the standard dispute focus and the reference referee rule;
  • a second semantic module configured to store a second semantic relationship, where the second semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the reference refereeing rule and the legal and legal provisions.
  • the model further includes:
  • a third semantic module a fourth semantic module, a fifth semantic module, a sixth semantic module, and any one or more of the template modules;
  • a third semantic module configured to store a third semantic relationship, where the third semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the focus of the case dispute and the focus of the standard dispute;
  • a fourth semantic module configured to store a fourth semantic relationship, where the fourth semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the focus of the case dispute and the case referee rule;
  • a fifth semantic module configured to store a fifth semantic relationship, where the fifth semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the case referee rule and the reference referee rule;
  • a sixth semantic module configured to store a sixth semantic relationship, where the sixth semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the case fact description and the standard fact description
  • the template module configured to store the preset judicial knowledge map, further includes a correspondence between the standard fact description and a standard fact template.
  • the apparatus for recommending judicial knowledge includes a processor and a memory, and the semantic analysis unit, the first search unit, the first acquisition unit, and the like are all stored as a program unit in a memory, and the processor executes the program unit stored in the memory. Implement the corresponding functions.
  • the processor contains a kernel, and the kernel removes the corresponding program unit from the memory.
  • the kernel can set one or more, and adjust the kernel parameters to implement intelligent technical solutions for recommending judicial knowledge.
  • the memory may include non-persistent memory, random access memory (RAM), and/or non-volatile memory in a computer readable medium, such as read only memory (ROM) or flash memory (flash RAM), the memory including at least one Memory chip.
  • RAM random access memory
  • ROM read only memory
  • flash RAM flash memory
  • Embodiments of the present invention provide a storage medium on which a program is stored, and when the program is executed by a processor, the method for recommending judicial knowledge is implemented.
  • An embodiment of the present invention provides a processor, where the processor is configured to run a program, where the program executes the method for recommending judicial knowledge.
  • An embodiment of the present invention provides a device, including a processor, a memory, and a program stored on the memory and executable on the processor.
  • the processor implements the following steps when executing the program:
  • the standard dispute focus of finding the semantic matching with the target case data is taken as the focus of the first standard dispute from the preset judicial knowledge map, and the preset judicial knowledge map includes the focus of the standard dispute, and the reference of the standard dispute focus is applied.
  • a referee rule, the law and regulation clause to which the referee rule applies a first semantic relationship, and a second semantic relationship, the first semantic relationship including a semantic relationship between the standard dispute focus and the reference referee rule,
  • the second semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the reference referee rule and the law and regulation provisions;
  • the legal knowledge and regulations applicable to the first reference referee rule are obtained in the judicial knowledge map as the first law and regulation provisions.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case dispute focus of an existing case, a standard dispute focus to which the case dispute focus belongs, and a third semantic relationship, the third semantic relationship including the case
  • This step also includes:
  • the first case dispute focus included in the second standard dispute focus is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of the existing case, and the step further includes:
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case dispute focus of the existing case, a case referee rule to which the case dispute focus applies, and a fourth semantic relationship, where the fourth semantic relationship includes The semantic relationship between the focus of the case and the refereeing rules of the case, the step further includes:
  • the first case referee rule applicable to the first case dispute focus is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of the existing case, and the step further includes:
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case referee rule of the existing case, a reference referee rule to which the case referee rule belongs, and a fifth semantic relationship, where the fifth semantic relationship includes The semantic relationship between the case referee rule and the reference referee rule, the step further comprising:
  • the first reference referee rule to which the first case referee rule belongs is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of an existing case, a case fact description of the existing case, a standard fact description of the case fact description, and a sixth semantic relationship
  • the sixth semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the case fact description and the standard fact description
  • the step further includes:
  • the step further includes:
  • the second standard fact description is output.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map further includes a correspondence between the standard fact description and a standard fact template, and the step further includes:
  • the third standard dispute focus the fourth case dispute focus, the third case referee rule, the second reference referee rule, and the second law and regulation provision generating referee Instruments.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a correspondence between the judicial knowledge and the keyword of the judicial knowledge
  • the judicial knowledge includes the standard dispute focus, the reference referee rule, the law and regulation a clause, the standard fact description, and any one or more of the standard fact templates, the step further comprising:
  • the devices in this document can be servers, PCs, PADs, mobile phones, and the like.
  • the present application also provides a computer program product, when executed on a data processing device, adapted to perform a process of initializing the method steps as follows:
  • the standard dispute focus of finding the semantic matching with the target case data is taken as the focus of the first standard dispute from the preset judicial knowledge map, and the preset judicial knowledge map includes the focus of the standard dispute, and the reference of the standard dispute focus is applied.
  • a referee rule, the law and regulation clause to which the referee rule applies a first semantic relationship, and a second semantic relationship, the first semantic relationship including a semantic relationship between the standard dispute focus and the reference referee rule,
  • the second semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the reference referee rule and the law and regulation provisions;
  • the legal knowledge and regulations applicable to the first reference referee rule are obtained in the judicial knowledge map as the first law and regulation provisions.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case dispute focus of an existing case, a standard dispute focus to which the case dispute focus belongs, and a third semantic relationship, the third semantic relationship including the case
  • This step also includes:
  • the first case dispute focus included in the second standard dispute focus is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of the existing case, and the step further includes:
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case dispute focus of the existing case, a case referee rule to which the case dispute focus applies, and a fourth semantic relationship, where the fourth semantic relationship includes The semantic relationship between the focus of the case and the refereeing rules of the case, the step further includes:
  • the first case referee rule applicable to the first case dispute focus is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of the existing case, and the step further includes:
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a case referee rule of the existing case, a reference referee rule to which the case referee rule belongs, and a fifth semantic relationship, where the fifth semantic relationship includes The semantic relationship between the case referee rule and the reference referee rule, the step further comprising:
  • the first reference referee rule to which the first case referee rule belongs is obtained from the preset judicial knowledge map.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes existing case data of an existing case, a case fact description of the existing case, a standard fact description of the case fact description, and a sixth semantic relationship
  • the sixth semantic relationship includes a semantic relationship between the case fact description and the standard fact description
  • the step further includes:
  • the step further includes:
  • the second standard fact description is output.
  • the preset judicial knowledge map further includes a correspondence between the standard fact description and a standard fact template, and the step further includes:
  • the third standard dispute focus the fourth case dispute focus, the third case referee rule, the second reference referee rule, and the second law and regulation provision generating referee Instruments.
  • the predetermined judicial knowledge map further includes a correspondence between the judicial knowledge and the keyword of the judicial knowledge
  • the judicial knowledge includes the standard dispute focus, the reference referee rule, the law and regulation a clause, the standard fact description, and any one or more of the standard fact templates, the step further comprising:
  • embodiments of the present application can be provided as a method, system, or computer program product.
  • the present application can take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment, or an embodiment in combination of software and hardware.
  • the application can take the form of a computer program product embodied on one or more computer-usable storage media (including but not limited to disk storage, CD-ROM, optical storage, etc.) including computer usable program code.
  • the computer program instructions can also be stored in a computer readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing device to operate in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readable memory produce an article of manufacture comprising the instruction device.
  • the apparatus implements the functions specified in one or more blocks of a flow or a flow and/or block diagram of the flowchart.
  • These computer program instructions can also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing device such that a series of operational steps are performed on a computer or other programmable device to produce computer-implemented processing for execution on a computer or other programmable device.
  • the instructions provide steps for implementing the functions specified in one or more of the flow or in a block or blocks of a flow diagram.
  • a computing device includes one or more processors (CPUs), input/output interfaces, network interfaces, and memory.
  • processors CPUs
  • input/output interfaces network interfaces
  • memory volatile and non-volatile memory
  • the memory may include non-persistent memory, random access memory (RAM), and/or non-volatile memory in a computer readable medium, such as read only memory (ROM) or flash memory.
  • RAM random access memory
  • ROM read only memory
  • Memory is an example of a computer readable medium.
  • Computer readable media includes both permanent and non-persistent, removable and non-removable media.
  • Information storage can be implemented by any method or technology.
  • the information can be computer readable instructions, data structures, modules of programs, or other data.
  • Examples of computer storage media include, but are not limited to, phase change memory (PRAM), static random access memory (SRAM), dynamic random access memory (DRAM), other types of random access memory (RAM), read only memory. (ROM), electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technology, compact disk read only memory (CD-ROM), digital versatile disk (DVD) or other optical storage, Magnetic tape cartridges, magnetic tape storage or other magnetic storage devices or any other non-transportable media can be used to store information that can be accessed by a computing device.
  • computer readable media does not include temporary storage of computer readable media, such as modulated data signals and carrier waves.
  • embodiments of the present invention can be provided as a method, system, or computer program product. Accordingly, the present invention may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment, or a combination of software and hardware. Moreover, the invention can take the form of a computer program product embodied on one or more computer-usable storage media (including but not limited to disk storage, CD-ROM, optical storage, etc.) including computer usable program code.
  • computer-usable storage media including but not limited to disk storage, CD-ROM, optical storage, etc.

Landscapes

  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Data Mining & Analysis (AREA)
  • Databases & Information Systems (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
  • Financial Or Insurance-Related Operations Such As Payment And Settlement (AREA)

Abstract

本发明实施例提供了推荐司法知识的方法及装置，预设的司法知识图谱包括标准争议焦点，标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文，第一语义关系，以及第二语义关系，利用语义分析和语义匹配的技术手段，从预设的司法知识图谱中查找到与该目标案件数据的语义匹配的第一标准争议焦点，再根据第一语义关系和第二语义关系，获得第一标准争议焦点适用的第一参考裁判规则，以及第一参考裁判规则适用的第一法律法规条文，无需使用者有高水平的司法专业知识，仅需输入目标案件的目标案件数据，即可实现智能推荐与该目标案件相关的司法知识，普遍适用性高。

Description

一种推荐司法知识的方法及装置
本申请要求于2017年04月06日提交中国专利局、申请号为201710221357.6、申请名称为“一种推荐司法知识的方法及装置”的中国专利申请的优先权，其全部内容通过引用结合在本申请中。
技术领域
本申请涉及司法知识技术领域，特别是涉及一种推荐司法知识的方法及装置。
背景技术
法官、律师，以及案件的当事人在处理一个目标案件时，需要获得与该目标案件相似的已有案件的司法知识作为参考，该司法知识包括案件事实描述，争议焦点描述，适用的案件裁判规则，适用的法律法规条文，以及案件裁判文书等。
获得与该目标案件相似的已有案件的司法知识的方法，一般由处理该目标案件的法官，律师，或者当事人等，利用所知晓的法律知识，对该目标案件的案件信息进行深入分析，总结该目标案件的案件事实和案件争议焦点，并使用法律关键词，从法律知识库中检索，获得与该目标案件相似的已有案件的司法知识。
上述检索司法知识的方法，要求使用者(法官，律师，或者当事人等)熟悉该法律知识库的组织方式，能够利用法律知识准确的总结该目标案件的案件事实和案件争议焦点，并使用准确的法律关键词进行检索，这对使用者的司法专业知识水平要求太高，导致该方法普遍适用性差。
发明内容
本发明解决的技术问题在于提供一种推荐司法知识的方法及装置，通过记载司法知识之间的语义关系，实现了智能的推荐司法知识的技术方案。
为此，本发明解决技术问题的技术方案是：
一种推荐司法知识的方法，所述方法包括：
获取目标案件的目标案件数据，对所述目标案件数据进行语义分析；
从预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的标准争议焦点作为第一标准争议焦点，所述预设的司法知识图谱包括标准争议焦点，所述标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，所述参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文，第一语义关系，以及第二语义关系，所述第一语义关系包括所述标准争议焦点与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述第二语义关系包括所述参考裁判规则与所述法律法规条文之间的语义关系；
利用所述第一语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则作为第一参考裁判规则，利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第一法律法规条文。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点，以及第三语义关系，所述第三语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述标准争议焦点之间的语义关系，所述方法还包括：
获取从所述第一标准争议焦点中选取的第二标准争议焦点；
利用所述第三语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第二标准争议焦点所包含的第一案件争议焦点。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的已有案件数据，所述方法还包括：
获取从所述第一案件争议焦点中选择的第二案件争议焦点；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第二案件争议焦点所属的第一已有案件集合；
获取从所述第一已有案件集合中选取的第二已有案件集合；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第二已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点适用的案件裁判规则，以及第四语义关系，所述第四语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述案件裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述方法还包括：
利用所述第四语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一案件争议焦点适用的第一案件裁判规则。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的已有案件数据，所述方法还包括：
获取从所述第一案件裁判规则中选择的第二案件裁判规则；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第二案件裁判规则所属的第三已有案件集合；
获取从所述第三已有案件集合中选取的第四已有案件集合；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第四已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的案件裁判规则，所述案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则，以及第五语义关系，所述第五语义关系包括所述案件裁判规则与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述方法还包括：
利用所述第五语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一案件裁判规则所属的第一参考裁判规则。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括已有案件的已有案件数据，所述已有案件的案件事实描述，所述案件事实描述所属的标准事实描述，第六语义关系，所述第六语义关系包括所述案件事实描述与所述标准事实描述之间的语义关系，所述方法还包括：
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的第一已有案件集合数据；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第一已有案件集合数据所属的第五已有案件集合；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的第一案件事实描述；
利用所述第六语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第一案件事实描述所属的第一标准事实描述。
在一个例子中，所述方法还包括：
统计每一个所述第一标准事实描述所出现的次数；
获取出现的次数最多的所述第一标准事实描述作为第二标准事实描述；
输出所述第二标准事实描述。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述标准事实描述和标准事实模板的 对应关系，所述方法还包括：
获取从所述第一标准事实描述中所选的第三标准事实描述；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第三标准事实描述对应的标准事实模板作为目标标准事实模板；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的案件争议焦点作为第三案件争议焦点；
获取从所述第三案件争议焦点中选取的第四案件争议焦点；
利用所述第三语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第四案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点作为第三标准争议焦点；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的案件裁判规则作为第二案件裁判规则；
获取从所述第二案件裁判规则中选择的第三案件裁判规则；
利用所述第五语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第三案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则作为第二参考裁判规则；
利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第二参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第二法律法规条文；
利用所述目标标准事实模板，所述第三标准争议焦点，所述第四案件争议焦点，所述第三案件裁判规则，所述第二参考裁判规则，以及所述第二法律法规条文生成裁判文书。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱中还包括司法知识与该司法知识的关键词的对应关系，所述司法知识包括所述标准争议焦点，所述参考裁判规则，所述法律法规条文，所述标准事实描述，以及所述标准事实模板中的任意一种或多种，所述方法还包括：
获取关键词；
根据所述关键词从所述预设的司法知识图谱中查找所述关键词对应的司法知识。
一种推荐司法知识的装置，所述装置包括：
语义分析单元，用于获取目标案件的目标案件数据，对所述目标案件数据进行语义分析；
第一查找单元，用于从预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的标准争议焦点作为第一标准争议焦点，所述预设的司法知识图谱包括标准争议焦点，所述标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，所述参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文，第一语义关系，以及第二语义关系，所述第一语义关系包括所述标准争议焦点与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述第二语义关系包括所述参考裁判规则与所述法律法规条文之间的语义关系；
第一获取单元，用于利用所述第一语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则作为第一参考裁判规则，利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第一法律法规条文。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点，以及第三语义关系，所述第三语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述标准争议焦点之间的语义关系，所述装置还包括：
第二获取单元，用于获取从所述第一标准争议焦点中选取的第二标准争议焦点；
第三获取单元，用于利用所述第三语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第二标准争议焦点所包含的第一案件争议焦点。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的已有案件数据，所述装置还包括：
第四获取单元，用于获取从所述第一案件争议焦点中选择的第二案件争议焦点；
第一确定单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第二案件争议焦点所属的第一已有案件集合；
第五获取单元，用于获取从所述第一已有案件集合中选取的第二已有案件集合；
第六获取单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第二已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点适用的案件裁判规则，以及第四语义关系，所述第四语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述案件裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述装置还包括：
第七获取单元，用于利用所述第四语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一案件争议焦点适用的第一案件裁判规则。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的已有案件数据，所述装置还包括：
第八获取单元，用于获取从所述第一案件裁判规则中选择的第二案件裁判规则；
第二确定单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第二案件裁判规则所属的第三已有案件集合；
第九获取单元，用于获取从所述第三已有案件集合中选取的第四已有案件集合；
第十获取单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第四已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的案件裁判规则，所述案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则，以及第五语义关系，所述第五语义关系包括所述案件裁判规则与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述装置还包括：
第十一获取单元，用于利用所述第五语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一案件裁判规则所属的第一参考裁判规则。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括已有案件的已有案件数据，所述已有案件的案件事实描述，所述案件事实描述所属的标准事实描述，第六语义关系，所述第六语义关系包括所述案件事实描述与所述标准事实描述之间的语义关系，所述装置还包括：
第二查找单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的第一已有案件集合数据；
第三确定单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第一已有案件集合数据所属的第五已有案件集合；
第十二获取单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的第一案件事实描述；
第十三获取单元，用于利用所述第六语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所 述第一案件事实描述所属的第一标准事实描述。
在一个例子中，所述装置还包括：
统计单元，用于统计每一个所述第一标准事实描述所出现的次数；
第十四获取单元，用于获取出现的次数最多的所述第一标准事实描述作为第二标准事实描述；
输出单元，用于输出所述第二标准事实描述。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述标准事实描述和标准事实模板的对应关系，所述装置还包括：
第十五获取单元，用于获取从所述第一标准事实描述中所选的第三标准事实描述；
第十六获取单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第三标准事实描述对应的标准事实模板作为目标标准事实模板；
第十七获取单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的案件争议焦点作为第三案件争议焦点；
第十八获取单元，用于获取从所述第三案件争议焦点中选取的第四案件争议焦点；
第十九获取单元，用于利用所述第三语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第四案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点作为第三标准争议焦点；
第二十获取单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的案件裁判规则作为第二案件裁判规则；
第二十一获取单元，用于获取从所述第二案件裁判规则中选择的第三案件裁判规则；
第二十二获取单元，用于利用所述第五语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第三案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则作为第二参考裁判规则；
第二十三获取单元，用于利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第二参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第二法律法规条文；
生成单元，用于利用所述目标标准事实模板，所述第三标准争议焦点，所述第四案件争议焦点，所述第三案件裁判规则，所述第二参考裁判规则，以及所述第二法律法规条文生成裁判文书。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱中还包括司法知识与该司法知识的关键词的对应关系，所述司法知识包括所述标准争议焦点，所述参考裁判规则，所述法律法规条文，所述标准事实描述，以及所述标准事实模板中的任意一种或多种，所述装置还包括：
第二十四获取单元，用于获取关键词；
第三查找单元，用于根据所述关键词从所述预设的司法知识图谱中查找所述关键词对应的司法知识。
一种司法知识图谱的模型，所述模型包括：
第一语义模块，用于存储第一语义关系，所述第一语义关系包括所述标准争议焦点与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系；
第二语义模块，用于存储第二语义关系，所述第二语义关系包括所述参考裁判规则与所述法律法规条文之间的语义关系。
在一个例子中，所述模型还包括：
第三语义模块，第四语义模块，第五语义模块，第六语义模块，以及模板模块中的任 意一种或多种；
第三语义模块，用于存储第三语义关系，所述第三语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述标准争议焦点之间的语义关系；
第四语义模块，用于存储第四语义关系，所述第四语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述案件裁判规则之间的语义关系；
第五语义模块，用于存储第五语义关系，所述第五语义关系包括所述案件裁判规则与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系；
第六语义模块，用于存储第六语义关系，所述第六语义关系包括所述案件事实描述与所述标准事实描述之间的语义关系
模板模块，用于存储所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述标准事实描述和标准事实模板的对应关系。
一种存储介质，其上存储有程序，所述程序被处理器执行时实现上述内容所述的推荐司法知识的方法。
一种处理器，所述处理器用于运行程序，所述程序运行时执行上述内容所述的推荐司法知识的方法。
通过上述技术方案可知，本发明有如下有益效果：
本发明实施例提供了推荐司法知识的方法及装置，获取目标案件的目标案件数据，对目标案件数据进行语义分析，从预设的司法知识图谱中查找与目标案件数据的语义匹配的标准争议焦点作为第一标准争议焦点，获取第一标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则作为第一参考裁判规则，获取所述第一参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第一法律法规条文。预设的司法知识图谱包括标准争议焦点，标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文，第一语义关系，以及第二语义关系，利用语义分析和语义匹配的技术手段，从预设的司法知识图谱中查找到与该目标案件数据的语义匹配的第一标准争议焦点，再根据第一语义关系和第二语义关系，获得第一标准争议焦点适用的第一参考裁判规则，以及第一参考裁判规则适用的第一法律法规条文，无需使用者有高水平的司法专业知识，仅需输入目标案件的目标案件数据，即可实现智能推荐与该目标案件相关的司法知识，普遍适用性高。
上述说明仅是本发明技术方案的概述，为了能够更清楚了解本发明的技术手段，而可依照说明书的内容予以实施，并且为了让本发明的上述和其它目的、特征和优点能够更明显易懂，以下列举本发明的具体实施方式。
附图说明
图1为本发明实施例提供的推荐司法知识的方法一实例流程图；
图2为本发明实施例提供的推荐司法知识的方法二实例流程图；
图3为本发明实施例提供的推荐司法知识的方法三实例流程图；
图4为本发明实施例提供的推荐司法知识的方法四实例流程图；
图5为本发明实施例提供的推荐司法知识的方法五实例流程图；
图6为本发明实施例提供的推荐司法知识的方法六实例流程图；
图7为本发明实施例提供的司法知识图谱结构示意图；
图8为本发明实施例提供的推荐司法知识的装置结构示意图。
具体实施方式
下面将参照附图更详细地描述本发明公开的示例性实施例。虽然附图中显示了本发明公开的示例性实施例，然而应当理解，可以以各种形式实现本发明公开而不应被这里阐述的实施例所限制。相反，提供这些实施例是为了能够更透彻地理解本公开，并且能够将本发明公开的范围完整的传达给本领域的技术人员。
本发明实施例提供了一个预设的司法知识图谱，该司法知识图谱定义了司法知识之间的语义关系。该司法知识图谱是以大量的已有案件的已有案件数据为基础，由司法知识图谱技术专家采用智能识别和标注的技术手段，从大量的已有案件数据中分类提取所需的司法知识，再由司法专家对所提取的司法知识进行专业的总结和修改，从而建立了司法知识之间的语义关系。下面进行详细介绍。
在一个实施例中，司法知识图谱包括标准争议焦点，标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文，第一语义关系，以及第二语义关系，第一语义关系包括标准争议焦点与参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，第二语义关系包括参考裁判规则与法律法规条文之间的语义关系。
其中，标准争议焦点，标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，以及参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文即为司法知识。标准争议焦点即为司法部门(例如：法院，检察院)认定并发布的争议焦点。一种情况下，该标准争议焦点可以是由法院或者检察院根据实际案例总结并认定的，作为争议焦点的规范表述形式；另一种情况下，该标准争议焦点也可以是由法官或者律师根据实际案件总结的，由法院或者检察院所认定的，作为争议焦点的规范表述形式。
参考裁判规则即为司法部门官方认定并发布的裁判规则。与标准争议焦点类似，一种情况下，参考裁判规则可以是由法院或者检察院根据实际案例总结并认定的，作为裁判规则的规范表述形式；另一种情况下，该参考裁判规则也可以是由法官或者律师根据实际案件总结的，由法院或者检察院所认定的，作为裁判规则的规范表述形式。
法律法规条文可以是：中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会及其常务委员会所制定的法律，全国人民代表大会常务委员会的法律解释，最高人民法院或最高人民检察院做出的司法解释，中华人民共和国国务院所制定的行政法规，各省、自治区、直辖市的人民代表大会及其常务委员会制定的地方性法规、自治条例、单行条例，各省、自治区、直辖市和较大的市的人民政府以及国务院各部、委员会、中国人民银行、审计署和具有行政管理职能的直属机构制定的规章。当然，该法律法规条文也可以是其他国家或者地区所颁布和使用的法律法规条文，上述以及下面的解释只是为了直观的给出法律法规条文的一种具体的示例性说明而作出的描述，不作为对法律法规条文的限定。
为了方便理解，对第一语义关系，以及第二语义关系进行举例说明：
表1第一语义关系以及第二语义关系实例
Figure PCTCN2018076617-appb-000001
Figure PCTCN2018076617-appb-000002
并且，一个标准争议焦点存在至少一个所适用的参考裁判规则，而一个参考裁判规则又存在至少一个所适用的法律法规条文。第一语义关系，表征了标准争议焦点，以及该标准争议焦点所适用的参考裁判规则之间的语义关系。第二语义关系，表征了参考裁判规则，以及该参考裁判规则所适用的法律法规条文之间的语义关系。
在实际应用中，已知一个目标案件的目标案件数据时，查找预设的司法知识图谱中与该目标案件数据的语义匹配的标准争议焦点，再根据第一语义关系和第二语义关系，获得标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，以及参考裁判规则所适用的法律法规条文。从而获得与该目标案件相关的司法知识，无需利用司法专业知识从该目标案件的目标案件数据中总结关键词进行检索，即可获得与该目标案件相关的司法知识，具有普遍的适用性。
在另一个实例中，预设的司法知识图谱中，不仅包括上述的标准争议焦点，标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文，第一语义关系，以及第二语义关系，第一语义关系包括标准争议焦点与参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，第二语义关系包括参考裁判规则与法律法规条文之间的语义关系，还包括下述内容中的任意一种或多种：
内容一，案件争议焦点，案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点，以及第三语义关系，第三语义关系包括案件争议焦点与标准争议焦点之间的语义关系；
内容二，已有案件的已有案件数据；
内容三，已有案件的案件争议焦点，案件争议焦点适用的案件裁判规则，以及第四语义关系，第四语义关系包括案件争议焦点与所述案件裁判规则之间的语义关系；
内容四，已有案件的案件裁判规则，案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则，以及第五语义关系，第五语义关系包括案件裁判规则与参考裁判规则之间的语义关系；
内容五，已有案件的已有案件数据，已有案件的案件事实描述，案件事实描述所属的标准事实描述，第六语义关系，第六语义关系包括案件事实描述与标准事实描述之间的语义关系。
具体实现时，预设的司法知识图谱除了包括上述的标准争议焦点，标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文，第一语义关系，以及第二语义关系的内容以外，还可以包括上述内容一至内容五中的任意一种，也可以包括上述内容一至内 容五中的任意N种(N小于五)，还可以包括上述内容一至内容五中的所有内容。由技术人员根据实际需要具体设置即可，这里不进行具体限定。可以理解的是，预设的司法知识图谱中所包含的内容越多，根据目标案件数据所能获得的与该目标案件相关的司法知识也就越多。
为了方便理解，对司法知识图谱中所包括的第一语义关系，第二语义关系，第三语义关系，第四语义关系，以及第五语义关系进行举例说明：
表2第一语义关系，第二语义关系，第三语义关系，第四语义关系，以及第五语义关系实例
Figure PCTCN2018076617-appb-000003
Figure PCTCN2018076617-appb-000004
这里需要说明的是，表2中案件编号能够唯一标识一个已有案件，根据该案件编号可以获得该已有案件的已有案件数据。案件争议焦点即为已有案件的争议焦点。标准争议焦点是已有案件的案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点。案件裁判规则即为已有案件的裁判规则。参考裁判规则是已有案件的案件裁判规则所属的标准裁判规则，也是标准争议焦点所适用的参考裁判规则。法律法规条文是参考裁判规则所适用的法律法规条文。
为了方便理解，对司法知识图谱中第六语义关系进行举例说明：
表3第六语义关系实例
Figure PCTCN2018076617-appb-000005
Figure PCTCN2018076617-appb-000006
在又一个实例中，预设的司法知识图谱除了包括上述内容外，还包括标准事实描述和标准事实模板的对应关系。一个标准事实描述对应于一个标准事实模板，标准事实描述是对一类事实的标准描述方式，而标准事实模板是将标准事实描述采用模板形式进行表示。已知目标案件的目标案件数据，从预设的司法知识图谱中查找与该目标案件数据的语义匹配的案件事实描述，再根据上述第六语义关系获得该案件事实描述所属的标准事实描述，进而获得该标准事实描述对应的标准事实模板。再依据该目标案件数据，从预设的司法知识图谱中获取与该目标案件相关的司法知识(包括标准争议焦点，案件争议焦点，案件裁判规则，参考裁判规则，法律法规条文)，根据用户从上述司法知识中所选的司法知识，利用该标准事实模板自动生成裁判文书。
为了方便理解，对司法知识图谱中标准事实描述与标准实施模板进行举例说明：
表4标准事实描述与标准实施模板实例
Figure PCTCN2018076617-appb-000007
可以理解的是，上述表1，表2，表3以及表4中所述的实例，是为了更好的理解本发明所提供的技术方案所列举的实例，具体实现时，并不仅限于表1，表2，表3以及表4中所述的实例，司法知识图谱中还包括其他类似的具体内容，这里不再赘述。
在又一个实例中，预设的司法知识图谱除了包括上述内容外，还包括司法知识与该司法知识的关键词的对应关系，司法知识包括标准争议焦点，参考裁判规则，法律法规条文，标准事实描述，以及标准事实模板中的任意一种或多种。从而，还可以根据关键词从预设的知识产权图谱中查找该关键词对应的司法知识。
此外，该预设的司法知识图谱中，还可以包括法律常识数据，该法律法规常识包括国内设立的法院，各个法院之间的层级关系，各个法院所管辖的行政区域等。
由此可知，本发明实施例中所提供的预设的司法知识图谱，定义了大量的司法知识，以及司法知识之间的语义关系。利用该预设的司法知识图谱，可以实现智能的推荐与目标案件相关的司法知识。无需用户从目标案件的案件数据中总结出关键词，进而无需用户必须拥有很高的司法知识水平，从而普遍适用性高。
下面逐一分析利用本发明实施例所提供的预设的司法知识图谱，如何实现推荐司法知识。
图1为本发明实施例提供的推荐司法知识的方法一实例流程图，包括：
步骤101：获取目标案件的目标案件数据，对所述目标案件数据进行语义分析。
步骤102：从预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的标准争议焦点作为第一标准争议焦点。
步骤103：利用所述第一语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则作为第一参考裁判规则，利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第一法律法规条文。
在图1所示的方法中，预设的司法知识图谱包括标准争议焦点，标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文，第一语义关系，以及第二语义关系，第一语义关系包括标准争议焦点与参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，第二语义关系包括参考裁判规则与法律法规条文之间的语义关系。
目标案件指的是已有起诉要求，应答内容，以及庭审辩论内容等案件数据的，还未进行判决的案件。获取一个目标案件的案件数据作为目标案件数据。采用现有技术中任意一种语义分析方式，对该目标案件数据进行语义分析。将目标案件数据与预设的司法知识图谱中的标准争议焦点进行语义匹配，查找与该目标案件数据语义匹配的标准争议焦点作为第一标准争议焦点。
这里需要说明的是，案件数据包括案件当事人信息，案件原由，原告或者上诉人的诉讼请求，被告或者被上诉人的答辩内容，证据材料，庭审笔录，案件争议焦点，案件裁判规则，该案件所适用的法律法规条文，案件的判决结果。已有案件数据除了包括上述案件数据以外，还包括该已有案件的裁判文书。目标案件数据仅包括上述案件数据，不包括裁判文书。
一般情况下，预先定义一个第一阈值，若目标案件数据与标准争议焦点的语义的匹配度超过该第一阈值时，表示该目标案件数据与标准争议焦点的语义匹配，则该标准争议焦点即属于该第一标准争议焦点。
这里需要说明的是，一般情况下，预设的司法知识图谱中，标准争议焦点包括该标准争议焦点的名称，以及该标准争议焦点的描述内容，将目标案件数据与预设的司法知识图 谱中的标准争议焦点进行语义匹配，指的是将目标案件数据与标准争议焦点的描述内容进行语义匹配。
预设的司法知识图谱中，包括第一语义关系，第一语义关系包括标准争议焦点与参考裁判规则之间的语义关系。第一语义关系表征标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，利用第一语义关系，获得第一标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则作为第一参考裁判规则。对于同一个标准争议焦点来说，所适用的参考裁判规则有可能只有一个，也有可能有多个。利用第一语义关系，能够获得第一标准争议焦点所适用的所有的参考裁判规则。
预设的司法知识图谱中，包括第二语义关系，第二语义关系包括参考裁判规则与法律法规条文之间的语义关系。第二语义关系表征参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文，利用第二语义关系，获得第一参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第一法律法规条文。同理的，对于同一个参考裁判规则来说，所适用的法律法规条文可能只有一条，也可能有多条。利用第二语义关系，能够获得第一参考裁判规则所适用的所有的法律法规条文。当然，实际应用中，可以从第一参考裁判规则中选择所需的参考裁判规则，仅利用第二语义关系获得所选择的参考裁判规则所适用的法律法规条文。
采用图1所示的方法，将目标案件数据与预设的司法知识图谱中的标准争议焦点进行语义匹配，获得与目标案件相关的第一标准争议焦点。在获得第一标准争议焦点(司法知识)时，并不需要用户从目标案件数据中总结分析得到与标准争议焦点有关的关键词，而是将原有的目标案件数据与预设的司法知识图谱中的标准争议焦点进行语义匹配。用户仅输入目标案件数据即可，并不需要用户有很高的司法专业知识水平，普遍适用性高。并且，采用上述方法，同一目标案件数据所得到的第一标准争议焦点是确定的。也避免了采用现有技术所提供的方法时，不同用户从同一目标案件数据中总结分析得到的关键词不同，进而导致所得到的标准争议焦点也不同。
采用图1所示的方法，第一标准争议焦点已知时，利用预设的司法知识图谱中的第一语义关系，还可以获得第一标准争议焦点所适用的第一参考裁判规则；利用第二语义关系，可以获得第一参考裁判规则所适用的第一法律法规条文。现有技术中，由用户根据目标案件数据分析总结关键词，利用关键词检索参考裁判规则和法律法规条文，只有司法知识水平很高的法官以及律师，才能精准的检索到与该目标案件相关的参考裁判规则，以及所适用的法律法规条文，普遍适用性差。
在第一个例子中，如图2所示，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点，以及第三语义关系，所述第三语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述标准争议焦点之间的语义关系，所述方法还包括：
步骤201：获取从所述第一标准争议焦点中选取的第二标准争议焦点。
步骤202：利用所述第三语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第二标准争议焦点所包含的第一案件争议焦点。
在上述实例中，预设的司法知识图谱中还包括已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点，以及第三语义关系，已有案件的案件争议焦点，指的是从已有案件数据中获取的，对应于具体的已有案件的争议焦点。案件争议焦点的具体内容与已有案件数据的内容有关，具有案件差异性。一个案件争议焦点属于一个标准争议焦点，标准争议焦点司法部门官方发布的，对争议焦点的标准表述，具有共性。对于不同的已有案 件来说，存在不同表述的案件争议焦点，若案件争议焦点的本质内容相同，则属于同一个标准争议焦点。
第三语义关系，则为案件争议焦点以及该案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点的语义关系。获得第一标准争议焦点后，用户可以根据实际需要从第一标准争议焦点中选取所关注的标准争议焦点作为第二标准争议焦点。进而可以利用第三语义关系，从预设的司法知识图谱中获取第二标准争议焦点所包含的案件争议焦点作为第一案件争议焦点。预设的司法知识图谱是基于大量的已有案件数据建立的，该预设的司法知识图谱中存在大量的已有案件的案件争议焦点的具体描述内容。用户可以选择所关注的第二标准争议焦点，从而获得属于该第二标准争议焦点的第一案件争议焦点的具体描述内容。
可以理解的是，在实际应用中，目标案件的案件争议焦点已知时，也可以利用该第三语义关系获得该案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点。
以第一个例子为基础，在第二个例子中，如图3所示，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的已有案件数据，所述方法还包括：
步骤301：获取从所述第一案件争议焦点中选择的第二案件争议焦点。
步骤302：从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第二案件争议焦点所属的第一已有案件集合。
步骤303：获取从所述第一已有案件集合中选取的第二已有案件集合。
步骤304：从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第二已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
一个案件争议焦点属于一个具体的已有案件，用户可以从第一案件争议焦点中选取所关注的案件争议焦点作为第二案件争议焦点，并确定该第二案件争议焦点所属的已有案件作为第一已有案件集合。用户再从第一已有案件集合中选取所关注的已有案件作为第二已有案件集合，从预设的司法知识图谱中获得第二已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
图2所示的方法中，根据目标案件数据获得了第一标准争议焦点，用户从第一标准争议焦点中选择所关注的第二标准争议焦点，再利用第三语义关系，获得第二标准争议焦点包含的第一案件争议焦点，用户再从第一案件争议焦点中选择所关注的第二案件争议焦点，再依据预设的司法知识图谱确定第二案件争议焦点所属的第一已有案件集合，用户再从第一已有案件集合中选取所关注的第二已有案件集合，从预设的司法知识图谱中获得第二已有案件集合的已有案件数据。从而可以逐步获得用户所关注的具体的案件争议焦点，以及已有案件数据，用户可以自行选择和查看所关注的各种已有案件的具体实践内容。
当然，可以理解的是，若已知一个已有案件，还可以利用该预设的司法知识图谱获得该已有案件的已有案件数据，案件争议焦点，案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点，标准争议焦点所适用的参考裁判规则，参考裁判规则所适用的法律法规条文。
以第一个例子为基础，在第三个例子中，如图4所示，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点适用的案件裁判规则，以及第四语义关系，所述第四语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述案件裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述方法还包括：
步骤401：利用所述第四语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一案件争议焦点适用的第一案件裁判规则。
基于大量的已有案件数据建立预设的司法知识图谱，该预设的司法知识图谱中不仅包 括案件争议焦点，还包括该案件争议焦点适用的案件裁判规则。案件裁判规则，指的是在具体的已有案件中，对一个案件争议焦点所采用的裁判规则。案件裁判规则也是从已有案件数据中所获得的，具有案件差异性。第四语义关系，即用于表征案件争议焦点，以及该案件争议焦点适用的案件裁判规则之间的语义关系。根据第四语义关系，可以获得第一案件争议焦点适用的第一案件裁判规则，便于用户查看和参考。
以第三个例子为基础，在第四个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的已有案件数据，所述方法还包括：
获取从所述第一案件裁判规则中选择的第二案件裁判规则；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第二案件裁判规则所属的第三已有案件集合；
获取从所述第三已有案件集合中选取的第四已有案件集合；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第四已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
案件裁判规则是某一特定的已有案件中存在的案件裁判规则，则案件裁判规则已知时，利用预设的司法知识图谱，可以确定该案件裁判规则所属的已有案件。
用户可以从第一案件裁判规则中选取所关注的案件裁判规则作为第二案件裁判规则，从预设的司法知识图谱中确定第二案件裁判规则所属的已有案件作为第三已有案件集合，用户再从第三已有案件集合中选取所关注的已有案件作为第四已有案件集合，从预设的司法知识图谱中获取第四已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
第二个例子和第四个例子，提供了两种不同的方法获取用户所关注的已有案件数据，第二个例子中是利用用户选取的所关注的案件争议焦点确定已有案件，进而获得该已有案件的已有案件数据；第四个例子是利用用户选取的所关注的案件裁判规则确定已有案件，进而获得该已有案件的已有案件数据。可以采用上述任意一种方法，获取所关注的已有案件的已有案件数据。
以第三个例子为基础，在第五个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的案件裁判规则，所述案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则，以及第五语义关系，所述第五语义关系包括所述案件裁判规则与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述方法还包括：
利用所述第五语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一案件裁判规则所属的第一参考裁判规则。
案件裁判规则，是从已有案件数据中获取的，对应于具体的已有案件所存在的裁判规则。案件裁判规则的具体内容与已有案件数据的具体内容有关，具有案件差异性。一个案件裁判规则属于一个参考裁判规则。参考裁判规则是司法部门官方发布的，对裁判规则的标准表述，具有共性。对于不同的已有案件来说，存在不同表述的案件裁判规则，若案件裁判规则的本质内容相同，则属于同一个标准争议焦点。即利用第五语义关系，案件裁判规则已知时，还可以获得该案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则。
在第六个例子中，如图5所示，图5仅示出了从预设的司法知识图谱中查询与目标案件相关的已有案件的数据内容的方法，图5所示的方法可以单独使用，也可以与图1所示的方法结合使用，这里不进行具体限定。
所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括已有案件的已有案件数据，所述已有案件的案件事实描述，所述案件事实描述所属的标准事实描述，第六语义关系，所述第六语义关系包括所 述案件事实描述与所述标准事实描述之间的语义关系，所述方法还包括：
步骤501：从所述预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的第一已有案件集合数据。
步骤502：从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第一已有案件集合数据所属的第五已有案件集合。
步骤503：从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的第一案件事实描述。
步骤504：利用所述第六语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第一案件事实描述所属的第一标准事实描述。
案件事实描述，是从已有案件数据中获取的，对应于具体的已有案件所存在的事实描述，具有案件差异性。一个案件事实描述属于一个标准事实描述。标准事实描述是司法部门官方发布的，对事实描述的标准表述，具有共性。
将目标案件数据与预设的司法知识图谱中的已有案件数据进行语义匹配，获取与目标案件数据语义匹配的已有案件数据作为第一已有案件集合数据。一般情况下，预先定义一个第二阈值，若目标案件数据与已有案件数据的语义的匹配度超过该第二阈值时，表示该目标案件数据与已有案件数据的语义匹配，则该已有案件数据即属于该第一已有案件集合数据。确定第一已有案件集合数据所述的已有案件作为第五已有案件集合。从预设的司法知识图谱中获取第五已有案件集合的案件事实描述作为第一案件事实描述，进而利用第六语义关系，获得该第一案件事实描述所属的标准事实描述作为第一标准事实描述。
可以理解的是，已知标准事实描述时，还可以利用第六语义关系，获取该标准事实描述所包含的案件事实描述。
基于第六个例子，在第七个例子中，所述方法还包括：
统计每一个所述第一标准事实描述所出现的次数；
获取出现的次数最多的所述第一标准事实描述作为第二标准事实描述；
输出所述第二标准事实描述。
由第六个例子中所述的内容可知，与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的第一已有案件集合数据存在多个，则从预设的司法知识图谱中获得的第一案件事实描述也有多个。由于不同的案件事实描述可能对应于同一标准事实描述，分别确定每一个第一案件事实描述所属的第一标准事实描述，统计每一个第一标准事实描述所出现的个数，将出现次数最多的第一标准事实描述作为第二标准事实描述输出。
可以理解的是，具体实现时，还可以按照出现的次数由高到低，按照顺序依次输出多个第一标准事实描述。还可以输出每一个第一标准事实描述所出现的次数。还可以根据用户的选择，输出用户所关注的第一标准事实描述。
基于第六个例子，在第八个例子中，如图6所示，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述标准事实描述和标准事实模板的对应关系，所述方法还包括：
步骤601：获取从所述第一标准事实描述中所选的第三标准事实描述。
步骤602：从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第三标准事实描述对应的标准事实模板作为目标标准事实模板。
步骤603：从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的案件争议焦点 作为第三案件争议焦点。
步骤604：获取从所述第三案件争议焦点中选取的第四案件争议焦点。
步骤605：利用所述第三语义关系，获从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第四案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点作为第三标准争议焦点。
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的案件裁判规则作为第二案件裁判规则；
获取从所述第二案件裁判规则中选择的第三案件裁判规则；
利用所述第五语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第三案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则作为第二参考裁判规则；
利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第二参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第二法律法规条文；
利用所述目标标准事实模板，所述第三标准争议焦点，所述第四案件争议焦点，所述第三案件裁判规则，所述第二参考裁判规则，以及所述第二法律法规条文生成裁判文书。
图6所示的方法提供了一种自动生成裁判文书的技术方案。预设的司法知识图谱中包括标准事实描述与标准事实模板的对应关系。第一已有案件集合数据与目标案件数据语义匹配，获取第一已有案件集合数据所属的第五已有案件集合的案件事实描述作为第一案件事实描述，再从预设的司法知识图谱中获得第一案件事实描述所属的标准事实描述作为第一标准事实描述。
用户从第一标准事实描述中选取所关注的标准事实描述作为第三标准事实描述，一般情况下，用户所选取的第三标准事实描述即为与目标案件最相似的标准事实描述，可以用来描述该目标案件的具体内容。从预设的司法知识图谱中获取第三标准事实描述对应的标准事实模板作为目标标准事实模板，采用该目标标准事实模板自动生成裁判文书。该目标标准事实模板中，还需要添加与该目标案件相关的司法知识。
第五已有案件集合是与该目标案件的语义匹配的已有案件，从预设的司法知识图谱中获取第五已有案件集合的案件争议焦点作为第三案件争议焦点，用户从该第三案件争议焦点中选取所关注的第四案件争议焦点。再利用第四语义关系，获得第四案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点作为第三标准争议焦点。
第五已有案件集合是与该目标案件的语义匹配的已有案件，从预设的司法知识图谱中获取第五已有案件集合的案件裁判规则作为第三案件裁判规则，利用第二语义关系，获得第三案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则作为第二参考裁判规则。(此外，还可以利用第一语义关系，获取第三标准争议焦点所适用的参考裁判规则作为第二参考裁判规则。)再利用第二语义关系，获得第二参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第二法律法规条文。
利用目标标准事实模板，第三标准争议焦点，第三标准争议焦点，第四案件争议焦点，第三案件裁判规则，第二参考裁判规则，以及第二法律法规条文生成裁判文书，自动生成裁判文书。
并且，所生成的裁判文书中，需要用户自行填写的内容，用特殊标记标出。
图6所示的自动生成裁判文书的方法，基于预设的司法知识图谱中所提供的司法知识，以及司法知识之间的语义关系，司法知识图谱中定义了标准事实描述所采用的标准事实模板，用户从所推荐的与目标案件相关的司法知识中选择所需的司法知识，将该司法知识自 动填充至标准事实模板中，从而实现自动生成裁判文书。
在第九个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱中还包括司法知识与该司法知识的关键词的对应关系，所述司法知识包括所述标准争议焦点，所述参考裁判规则，所述法律法规条文，所述标准事实描述，以及所述标准事实模板中的任意一种或多种，所述方法还包括：
获取关键词；
根据所述关键词从所述预设的司法知识图谱中查找所述关键词对应的司法知识。
在预设的司法知识图谱中，还包括司法知识与该司法知识的关键词的对应关系，也提供根据用户所输入的关键词，查找该关键词对应的司法知识的功能。
综合上述内容，本发明实施例所提供的预设的司法知识图谱提供了标准争议焦点，参考裁判规则，法律法规条文，标准事实描述，标准事实模板，案件争议焦点，案件参考规则，案件事实描述，已有案件数据等内容之间的关联关系，形成网状的图谱结构，如图7所示。
一方面，无需用户总结关键词进行精确检索，利用预设的司法知识图谱，仅需要用户输入目标案件数据，即可获得与目标案件相关的司法知识。另一方面，形成了对争议焦点，裁判规则，事实描述等规范化的表述，得到了标准争议焦点，参考裁判规则，以及标准事实描述。再一方面，提供了与标准事实描述对应的标准事实模板，利用标准事实模板，以及从预设的司法知识图谱中所获得的司法知识，能够实现自动生成裁判文书。又一方面，该预设的司法知识图谱还能够提供与目标案件相似的已有案件的已有案件数据，案件争议焦点，案件裁判规则等各种具体的案件数据，以供用户参考。
图8为本发明实施例提供的推荐司法知识的装置结构示意图，包括：
语义分析单元801，用于获取目标案件的目标案件数据，对所述目标案件数据进行语义分析。
第一查找单元802，用于从预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的标准争议焦点作为第一标准争议焦点，所述预设的司法知识图谱包括标准争议焦点，所述标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，所述参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文，第一语义关系，以及第二语义关系，所述第一语义关系包括所述标准争议焦点与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述第二语义关系包括所述参考裁判规则与所述法律法规条文之间的语义关系。
第一获取单元803，用于利用所述第一语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则作为第一参考裁判规则，利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第一法律法规条文。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点，以及第三语义关系，所述第三语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述标准争议焦点之间的语义关系，所述装置还包括：
第二获取单元，用于获取从所述第一标准争议焦点中选取的第二标准争议焦点；
第三获取单元，用于利用所述第三语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第二标准争议焦点所包含的第一案件争议焦点。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的已有案件数据，所述 装置还包括：
第四获取单元，用于获取从所述第一案件争议焦点中选择的第二案件争议焦点；
第一确定单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第二案件争议焦点所属的第一已有案件集合；
第五获取单元，用于获取从所述第一已有案件集合中选取的第二已有案件集合；
第六获取单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第二已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点适用的案件裁判规则，以及第四语义关系，所述第四语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述案件裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述装置还包括：
第七获取单元，用于利用所述第四语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一案件争议焦点适用的第一案件裁判规则。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的已有案件数据，所述装置还包括：
第八获取单元，用于获取从所述第一案件裁判规则中选择的第二案件裁判规则；
第二确定单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第二案件裁判规则所属的第三已有案件集合；
第九获取单元，用于获取从所述第三已有案件集合中选取的第四已有案件集合；
第十获取单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第四已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的案件裁判规则，所述案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则，以及第五语义关系，所述第五语义关系包括所述案件裁判规则与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述装置还包括：
第十一获取单元，用于利用所述第五语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一案件裁判规则所属的第一参考裁判规则。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括已有案件的已有案件数据，所述已有案件的案件事实描述，所述案件事实描述所属的标准事实描述，第六语义关系，所述第六语义关系包括所述案件事实描述与所述标准事实描述之间的语义关系，所述装置还包括：
第二查找单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的第一已有案件集合数据；
第三确定单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第一已有案件集合数据所属的第五已有案件集合；
第十二获取单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的第一案件事实描述；
第十三获取单元，用于利用所述第六语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第一案件事实描述所属的第一标准事实描述。
在一个例子中，所述装置还包括：
统计单元，用于统计每一个所述第一标准事实描述所出现的次数；
第十四获取单元，用于获取出现的次数最多的所述第一标准事实描述作为第二标准事 实描述；
输出单元，用于输出所述第二标准事实描述。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述标准事实描述和标准事实模板的对应关系，所述装置还包括：
第十五获取单元，用于获取从所述第一标准事实描述中所选的第三标准事实描述；
第十六获取单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第三标准事实描述对应的标准事实模板作为目标标准事实模板；
第十七获取单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的案件争议焦点作为第三案件争议焦点；
第十八获取单元，用于获取从所述第三案件争议焦点中选取的第四案件争议焦点；
第十九获取单元，用于利用所述第三语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第四案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点作为第三标准争议焦点；
第二十获取单元，用于从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的案件裁判规则作为第二案件裁判规则；
第二十一获取单元，用于获取从所述第二案件裁判规则中选择的第三案件裁判规则；
第二十二获取单元，用于利用所述第五语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第三案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则作为第二参考裁判规则；
第二十三获取单元，用于利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第二参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第二法律法规条文；
生成单元，用于利用所述目标标准事实模板，所述第三标准争议焦点，所述第四案件争议焦点，所述第三案件裁判规则，所述第二参考裁判规则，以及所述第二法律法规条文生成裁判文书。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱中还包括司法知识与该司法知识的关键词的对应关系，所述司法知识包括所述标准争议焦点，所述参考裁判规则，所述法律法规条文，所述标准事实描述，以及所述标准事实模板中的任意一种或多种，所述装置还包括：
第二十四获取单元，用于获取关键词；
第三查找单元，用于根据所述关键词从所述预设的司法知识图谱中查找所述关键词对应的司法知识。
图8所示的司法知识图谱的装置是与图1至图7所示的司法知识图谱的方法所对应的装置，具体实现方式与图1至图7所示的方法类似，参考图1至图7所示的方法的描述，这里不再赘述。
本发明实施例还提供司法知识图谱的模型，包括：
第一语义模块，用于存储第一语义关系，所述第一语义关系包括所述标准争议焦点与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系；
第二语义模块，用于存储第二语义关系，所述第二语义关系包括所述参考裁判规则与所述法律法规条文之间的语义关系。
在一个例子中，所述模型还包括：
第三语义模块，第四语义模块，第五语义模块，第六语义模块，以及模板模块中的任意一种或多种；
第三语义模块，用于存储第三语义关系，所述第三语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述标准争议焦点之间的语义关系；
第四语义模块，用于存储第四语义关系，所述第四语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述案件裁判规则之间的语义关系；
第五语义模块，用于存储第五语义关系，所述第五语义关系包括所述案件裁判规则与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系；
第六语义模块，用于存储第六语义关系，所述第六语义关系包括所述案件事实描述与所述标准事实描述之间的语义关系
模板模块，用于存储所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述标准事实描述和标准事实模板的对应关系。
所述推荐司法知识的装置包括处理器和存储器，上述语义分析单元、第一查找单元和第一获取单元等均作为程序单元存储在存储器中，由处理器执行存储在存储器中的上述程序单元来实现相应的功能。
处理器中包含内核，由内核去存储器中调取相应的程序单元。内核可以设置一个或以上，通过调整内核参数来实现智能的推荐司法知识的技术方案。
存储器可能包括计算机可读介质中的非永久性存储器，随机存取存储器(RAM)和/或非易失性内存等形式，如只读存储器(ROM)或闪存(flash RAM)，存储器包括至少一个存储芯片。
本发明实施例提供了一种存储介质，其上存储有程序，该程序被处理器执行时实现所述推荐司法知识的方法。
本发明实施例提供了一种处理器，所述处理器用于运行程序，其中，所述程序运行时执行所述推荐司法知识的方法。
本发明实施例提供了一种设备，设备包括处理器、存储器及存储在存储器上并可在处理器上运行的程序，处理器执行程序时实现以下步骤：
获取目标案件的目标案件数据，对所述目标案件数据进行语义分析；
从预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的标准争议焦点作为第一标准争议焦点，所述预设的司法知识图谱包括标准争议焦点，所述标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，所述参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文，第一语义关系，以及第二语义关系，所述第一语义关系包括所述标准争议焦点与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述第二语义关系包括所述参考裁判规则与所述法律法规条文之间的语义关系；
利用所述第一语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则作为第一参考裁判规则，利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第一法律法规条文。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点，以及第三语义关系，所述第三语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述标准争议焦点之间的语义关系，该步骤还包括：
获取从所述第一标准争议焦点中选取的第二标准争议焦点；
利用所述第三语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第二标准争议焦点所 包含的第一案件争议焦点。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的已有案件数据，该步骤还包括：
获取从所述第一案件争议焦点中选择的第二案件争议焦点；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第二案件争议焦点所属的第一已有案件集合；
获取从所述第一已有案件集合中选取的第二已有案件集合；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第二已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点适用的案件裁判规则，以及第四语义关系，所述第四语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述案件裁判规则之间的语义关系，该步骤还包括：
利用所述第四语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一案件争议焦点适用的第一案件裁判规则。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的已有案件数据，该步骤还包括：
获取从所述第一案件裁判规则中选择的第二案件裁判规则；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第二案件裁判规则所属的第三已有案件集合；
获取从所述第三已有案件集合中选取的第四已有案件集合；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第四已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的案件裁判规则，所述案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则，以及第五语义关系，所述第五语义关系包括所述案件裁判规则与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，该步骤还包括：
利用所述第五语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一案件裁判规则所属的第一参考裁判规则。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括已有案件的已有案件数据，所述已有案件的案件事实描述，所述案件事实描述所属的标准事实描述，第六语义关系，所述第六语义关系包括所述案件事实描述与所述标准事实描述之间的语义关系，该步骤还包括：
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的第一已有案件集合数据；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第一已有案件集合数据所属的第五已有案件集合；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的第一案件事实描述；
利用所述第六语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第一案件事实描述所属的第一标准事实描述。
在一个例子中，该步骤还包括：
统计每一个所述第一标准事实描述所出现的次数；
获取出现的次数最多的所述第一标准事实描述作为第二标准事实描述；
输出所述第二标准事实描述。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述标准事实描述和标准事实模板的对应关系，该步骤还包括：
获取从所述第一标准事实描述中所选的第三标准事实描述；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第三标准事实描述对应的标准事实模板作为目标标准事实模板；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的案件争议焦点作为第三案件争议焦点；
获取从所述第三案件争议焦点中选取的第四案件争议焦点；
利用所述第三语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第四案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点作为第三标准争议焦点；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的案件裁判规则作为第二案件裁判规则；
获取从所述第二案件裁判规则中选择的第三案件裁判规则；
利用所述第五语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第三案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则作为第二参考裁判规则；
利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第二参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第二法律法规条文；
利用所述目标标准事实模板，所述第三标准争议焦点，所述第四案件争议焦点，所述第三案件裁判规则，所述第二参考裁判规则，以及所述第二法律法规条文生成裁判文书。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱中还包括司法知识与该司法知识的关键词的对应关系，所述司法知识包括所述标准争议焦点，所述参考裁判规则，所述法律法规条文，所述标准事实描述，以及所述标准事实模板中的任意一种或多种，该步骤还包括：
获取关键词；
根据所述关键词从所述预设的司法知识图谱中查找所述关键词对应的司法知识。
本文中的设备可以是服务器、PC、PAD、手机等。
本申请还提供了一种计算机程序产品，当在数据处理设备上执行时，适于执行初始化有如下方法步骤的程序：
获取目标案件的目标案件数据，对所述目标案件数据进行语义分析；
从预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的标准争议焦点作为第一标准争议焦点，所述预设的司法知识图谱包括标准争议焦点，所述标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，所述参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文，第一语义关系，以及第二语义关系，所述第一语义关系包括所述标准争议焦点与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述第二语义关系包括所述参考裁判规则与所述法律法规条文之间的语义关系；
利用所述第一语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则作为第一参考裁判规则，利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第一法律法规条文。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点，以及第三语义关系，所述第三语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述标准争议焦点之间的语义关系，该步骤还包括：
获取从所述第一标准争议焦点中选取的第二标准争议焦点；
利用所述第三语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第二标准争议焦点所 包含的第一案件争议焦点。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的已有案件数据，该步骤还包括：
获取从所述第一案件争议焦点中选择的第二案件争议焦点；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第二案件争议焦点所属的第一已有案件集合；
获取从所述第一已有案件集合中选取的第二已有案件集合；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第二已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点适用的案件裁判规则，以及第四语义关系，所述第四语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述案件裁判规则之间的语义关系，该步骤还包括：
利用所述第四语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一案件争议焦点适用的第一案件裁判规则。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的已有案件数据，该步骤还包括：
获取从所述第一案件裁判规则中选择的第二案件裁判规则；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第二案件裁判规则所属的第三已有案件集合；
获取从所述第三已有案件集合中选取的第四已有案件集合；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第四已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的案件裁判规则，所述案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则，以及第五语义关系，所述第五语义关系包括所述案件裁判规则与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，该步骤还包括：
利用所述第五语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一案件裁判规则所属的第一参考裁判规则。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括已有案件的已有案件数据，所述已有案件的案件事实描述，所述案件事实描述所属的标准事实描述，第六语义关系，所述第六语义关系包括所述案件事实描述与所述标准事实描述之间的语义关系，该步骤还包括：
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的第一已有案件集合数据；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第一已有案件集合数据所属的第五已有案件集合；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的第一案件事实描述；
利用所述第六语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第一案件事实描述所属的第一标准事实描述。
在一个例子中，该步骤还包括：
统计每一个所述第一标准事实描述所出现的次数；
获取出现的次数最多的所述第一标准事实描述作为第二标准事实描述；
输出所述第二标准事实描述。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述标准事实描述和标准事实模板的对应关系，该步骤还包括：
获取从所述第一标准事实描述中所选的第三标准事实描述；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第三标准事实描述对应的标准事实模板作为目标标准事实模板；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的案件争议焦点作为第三案件争议焦点；
获取从所述第三案件争议焦点中选取的第四案件争议焦点；
利用所述第三语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第四案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点作为第三标准争议焦点；
从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的案件裁判规则作为第二案件裁判规则；
获取从所述第二案件裁判规则中选择的第三案件裁判规则；
利用所述第五语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第三案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则作为第二参考裁判规则；
利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第二参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第二法律法规条文；
利用所述目标标准事实模板，所述第三标准争议焦点，所述第四案件争议焦点，所述第三案件裁判规则，所述第二参考裁判规则，以及所述第二法律法规条文生成裁判文书。
在一个例子中，所述预设的司法知识图谱中还包括司法知识与该司法知识的关键词的对应关系，所述司法知识包括所述标准争议焦点，所述参考裁判规则，所述法律法规条文，所述标准事实描述，以及所述标准事实模板中的任意一种或多种，该步骤还包括：
获取关键词；
根据所述关键词从所述预设的司法知识图谱中查找所述关键词对应的司法知识。
本领域内的技术人员应明白，本申请的实施例可提供为方法、系统、或计算机程序产品。因此，本申请可采用完全硬件实施例、完全软件实施例、或结合软件和硬件方面的实施例的形式。而且，本申请可采用在一个或多个其中包含有计算机可用程序代码的计算机可用存储介质(包括但不限于磁盘存储器、CD-ROM、光学存储器等)上实施的计算机程序产品的形式。
本发明是参照根据本申请实施例的方法、设备(系统)、和计算机程序产品的流程图和/或方框图来描述的。应理解可由计算机程序指令实现流程图和/或方框图中的每一流程和/或方框、以及流程图和/或方框图中的流程和/或方框的结合。可提供这些计算机程序指令到通用计算机、专用计算机、嵌入式处理机或其他可编程数据处理设备的处理器以产生一个机器，使得通过计算机或其他可编程数据处理设备的处理器执行的指令产生用于实现在流程图一个流程或多个流程和/或方框图一个方框或多个方框中指定的功能的装置。
这些计算机程序指令也可存储在能引导计算机或其他可编程数据处理设备以特定方式工作的计算机可读存储器中，使得存储在该计算机可读存储器中的指令产生包括指令装置的制造品，该指令装置实现在流程图一个流程或多个流程和/或方框图一个方框或多个方框中指定的功能。
这些计算机程序指令也可装载到计算机或其他可编程数据处理设备上，使得在计算机 或其他可编程设备上执行一系列操作步骤以产生计算机实现的处理，从而在计算机或其他可编程设备上执行的指令提供用于实现在流程图一个流程或多个流程和/或方框图一个方框或多个方框中指定的功能的步骤。
在一个典型的配置中，计算设备包括一个或多个处理器(CPU)、输入/输出接口、网络接口和内存。
存储器可能包括计算机可读介质中的非永久性存储器，随机存取存储器(RAM)和/或非易失性内存等形式，如只读存储器(ROM)或闪存(flash RAM)。存储器是计算机可读介质的示例。
计算机可读介质包括永久性和非永久性、可移动和非可移动媒体可以由任何方法或技术来实现信息存储。信息可以是计算机可读指令、数据结构、程序的模块或其他数据。计算机的存储介质的例子包括，但不限于相变内存(PRAM)、静态随机存取存储器(SRAM)、动态随机存取存储器(DRAM)、其他类型的随机存取存储器(RAM)、只读存储器(ROM)、电可擦除可编程只读存储器(EEPROM)、快闪记忆体或其他内存技术、只读光盘只读存储器(CD-ROM)、数字多功能光盘(DVD)或其他光学存储、磁盒式磁带，磁带磁磁盘存储或其他磁性存储设备或任何其他非传输介质，可用于存储可以被计算设备访问的信息。按照本文中的界定，计算机可读介质不包括暂存电脑可读媒体(transitory media)，如调制的数据信号和载波。
还需要说明的是，术语“包括”、“包含”或者其任何其他变体意在涵盖非排他性的包含，从而使得包括一系列要素的过程、方法、商品或者设备不仅包括那些要素，而且还包括没有明确列出的其他要素，或者是还包括为这种过程、方法、商品或者设备所固有的要素。在没有更多限制的情况下，由语句“包括一个……”限定的要素，并不排除在包括要素的过程、方法、商品或者设备中还存在另外的相同要素。
本领域技术人员应明白，本发明的实施例可提供为方法、系统或计算机程序产品。因此，本发明可采用完全硬件实施例、完全软件实施例或结合软件和硬件方面的实施例的形式。而且，本发明可采用在一个或多个其中包含有计算机可用程序代码的计算机可用存储介质(包括但不限于磁盘存储器、CD-ROM、光学存储器等)上实施的计算机程序产品的形式。
以上仅为本发明的实施例而已，并不用于限制本发明。对于本领域技术人员来说，本发明可以有各种更改和变化。凡在本发明的精神和原理之内所作的任何修改、等同替换、改进等，均应包含在本发明的权利要求范围之内。

Claims (13)

  1. 一种推荐司法知识的方法，其特征在于，所述方法包括：
    获取目标案件的目标案件数据，对所述目标案件数据进行语义分析；
    从预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的标准争议焦点作为第一标准争议焦点，所述预设的司法知识图谱包括标准争议焦点，所述标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，所述参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文，第一语义关系，以及第二语义关系，所述第一语义关系包括所述标准争议焦点与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述第二语义关系包括所述参考裁判规则与所述法律法规条文之间的语义关系；
    利用所述第一语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则作为第一参考裁判规则，利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第一法律法规条文。
  2. 根据权利要求1所述的方法，其特征在于，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点，以及第三语义关系，所述第三语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述标准争议焦点之间的语义关系，所述方法还包括：
    获取从所述第一标准争议焦点中选取的第二标准争议焦点；
    利用所述第三语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第二标准争议焦点所包含的第一案件争议焦点。
  3. 根据权利要求2所述的方法，其特征在于，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的已有案件数据，所述方法还包括：
    获取从所述第一案件争议焦点中选择的第二案件争议焦点；
    从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第二案件争议焦点所属的第一已有案件集合；
    获取从所述第一已有案件集合中选取的第二已有案件集合；
    从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第二已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
  4. 根据权利要求2所述的方法，其特征在于，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的案件争议焦点，所述案件争议焦点适用的案件裁判规则，以及第四语义关系，所述第四语义关系包括所述案件争议焦点与所述案件裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述方法还包括：
    利用所述第四语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一案件争议焦点适用的第一案件裁判规则。
  5. 根据权利要求4所述的方法，其特征在于，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的已有案件数据，所述方法还包括：
    获取从所述第一案件裁判规则中选择的第二案件裁判规则；
    从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第二案件裁判规则所属的第三已有案件集合；
    获取从所述第三已有案件集合中选取的第四已有案件集合；
    从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第四已有案件集合的已有案件数据。
  6. 根据权利要求4所述的方法，其特征在于，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述已有案件的案件裁判规则，所述案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则，以及第五语义关系，所述第五语义关系包括所述案件裁判规则与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述方法 还包括：
    利用所述第五语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一案件裁判规则所属的第一参考裁判规则。
  7. 根据权利要求6所述的方法，其特征在于，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括已有案件的已有案件数据，所述已有案件的案件事实描述，所述案件事实描述所属的标准事实描述，第六语义关系，所述第六语义关系包括所述案件事实描述与所述标准事实描述之间的语义关系，所述方法还包括：
    从所述预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的第一已有案件集合数据；
    从所述预设的司法知识图谱中确定所述第一已有案件集合数据所属的第五已有案件集合；
    从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的第一案件事实描述；
    利用所述第六语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获得所述第一案件事实描述所属的第一标准事实描述。
  8. 根据权利要求7所述的方法，其特征在于，所述方法还包括：
    统计每一个所述第一标准事实描述所出现的次数；
    获取出现的次数最多的所述第一标准事实描述作为第二标准事实描述；
    输出所述第二标准事实描述。
  9. 根据权利要求7所述的方法，其特征在于，所述预设的司法知识图谱还包括所述标准事实描述和标准事实模板的对应关系，所述方法还包括：
    获取从所述第一标准事实描述中所选的第三标准事实描述；
    从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第三标准事实描述对应的标准事实模板作为目标标准事实模板；
    从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的案件争议焦点作为第三案件争议焦点；
    获取从所述第三案件争议焦点中选取的第四案件争议焦点；
    利用所述第三语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第四案件争议焦点所属的标准争议焦点作为第三标准争议焦点；
    从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第五已有案件集合的案件裁判规则作为第二案件裁判规则；
    获取从所述第二案件裁判规则中选择的第三案件裁判规则；
    利用所述第五语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第三案件裁判规则所属的参考裁判规则作为第二参考裁判规则；
    利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第二参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第二法律法规条文；
    利用所述目标标准事实模板，所述第三标准争议焦点，所述第四案件争议焦点，所述第三案件裁判规则，所述第二参考裁判规则，以及所述第二法律法规条文生成裁判文书。
  10. 根据权利要求9所述的方法，其特征在于，所述预设的司法知识图谱中还包括司法知识与该司法知识的关键词的对应关系，所述司法知识包括所述标准争议焦点，所述参 考裁判规则，所述法律法规条文，所述标准事实描述，以及所述标准事实模板中的任意一种或多种，所述方法还包括：
    获取关键词；
    根据所述关键词从所述预设的司法知识图谱中查找所述关键词对应的司法知识。
  11. 一种推荐司法知识的装置，其特征在于，所述装置包括：
    语义分析单元，用于获取目标案件的目标案件数据，对所述目标案件数据进行语义分析；
    第一查找单元，用于从预设的司法知识图谱中查找与所述目标案件数据的语义匹配的标准争议焦点作为第一标准争议焦点，所述预设的司法知识图谱包括标准争议焦点，所述标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则，所述参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文，第一语义关系，以及第二语义关系，所述第一语义关系包括所述标准争议焦点与所述参考裁判规则之间的语义关系，所述第二语义关系包括所述参考裁判规则与所述法律法规条文之间的语义关系；
    第一获取单元，用于利用所述第一语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一标准争议焦点适用的参考裁判规则作为第一参考裁判规则，利用所述第二语义关系，从所述预设的司法知识图谱中获取所述第一参考裁判规则适用的法律法规条文作为第一法律法规条文。
  12. 一种存储介质，其特征在于，其上存储有程序，所述程序被处理器执行时实现如权利要求1至10任一项所述的推荐司法知识的方法。
  13. 一种处理器，其特征在于，所述处理器用于运行程序，所述程序运行时执行如权利要求1至10任一项所述的推荐司法知识的方法。
PCT/CN2018/076617 2017-04-06 2018-02-13 一种推荐司法知识的方法及装置 WO2018184427A1 (zh)

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CN201710221357.6A CN108694178B (zh) 2017-04-06 2017-04-06 一种推荐司法知识的方法及装置
CN201710221357.6 2017-04-06

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2018184427A1 true WO2018184427A1 (zh) 2018-10-11

Family

ID=63713031

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/CN2018/076617 WO2018184427A1 (zh) 2017-04-06 2018-02-13 一种推荐司法知识的方法及装置

Country Status (2)

Country Link
CN (1) CN108694178B (zh)
WO (1) WO2018184427A1 (zh)

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN112463925A (zh) * 2020-12-01 2021-03-09 科大讯飞股份有限公司 案件卷宗处理方法、相关设备及可读存储介质

Families Citing this family (7)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN111507095B (zh) * 2019-01-29 2023-05-02 阿里云计算有限公司 裁判文书的生成方法、装置、存储介质和处理器
CN110232447B (zh) * 2019-04-28 2021-04-06 杭州实在智能科技有限公司 法律案件深度推理方法
CN110362592B (zh) * 2019-06-17 2023-06-23 平安科技（深圳）有限公司 裁决指引信息推送方法、装置、计算机设备和存储介质
CN110597999A (zh) * 2019-08-01 2019-12-20 湖北工业大学 一种依存句法分析关系抽取模型的司法案件知识图谱构建方法
CN110795566A (zh) * 2019-09-18 2020-02-14 平安科技（深圳）有限公司 案件推荐方法、装置、设备及计算机可读存储介质
CN111985236A (zh) * 2020-06-02 2020-11-24 中国航天科工集团第二研究院 基于多维联动的可视化分析方法
CN112395409A (zh) * 2020-11-30 2021-02-23 重庆工程职业技术学院 一种法律知识检索系统及方法

Citations (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN101454776A (zh) * 2005-10-04 2009-06-10 汤姆森环球资源公司 用于识别相关法律文件的系统、方法、和软件
CN101763373A (zh) * 2008-12-08 2010-06-30 新奥特硅谷视频技术有限责任公司 一种关联性检索的方法和装置
CN105677727A (zh) * 2015-12-29 2016-06-15 上海律巢网络科技有限公司 数据检索及检索结果呈现方法和系统
CN105930470A (zh) * 2016-04-25 2016-09-07 安徽富驰信息技术有限公司 一种基于特征权重分析技术的文件检索方法

Family Cites Families (10)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20110173052A1 (en) * 2010-01-12 2011-07-14 Bank Of America Corporation Enhanced Knowledge Management
CN101853449A (zh) * 2010-06-18 2010-10-06 上海百事通信息技术有限公司 一种法律问题智能诊断方法与系统
CN104240164A (zh) * 2014-09-29 2014-12-24 南京提坦信息科技有限公司 一种基于大数据分析的法律咨询方法及系统
US10489469B2 (en) * 2014-10-31 2019-11-26 Marketmuse, Inc. Systems and methods for semantic keyword analysis for paid search
CN105183802A (zh) * 2015-08-21 2015-12-23 内蒙古民族大学 一种用于法律咨询服务的智能法律知识库及其查询系统
CN105976109A (zh) * 2016-05-05 2016-09-28 云神科技投资股份有限公司 一种基于大数据智能审计的方法及系统
CN106204366A (zh) * 2016-07-22 2016-12-07 三峡大学 一种基于模糊推理的法律大数据管理系统
CN106503035A (zh) * 2016-09-14 2017-03-15 海信集团有限公司 一种知识图谱的数据处理方法和装置
CN106503239A (zh) * 2016-11-07 2017-03-15 上海智臻智能网络科技股份有限公司 一种法律信息查询的方法和装置
CN106502996A (zh) * 2016-12-13 2017-03-15 深圳爱拼信息科技有限公司 一种基于语义匹配的裁判文书检索方法和服务器

Patent Citations (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN101454776A (zh) * 2005-10-04 2009-06-10 汤姆森环球资源公司 用于识别相关法律文件的系统、方法、和软件
CN101763373A (zh) * 2008-12-08 2010-06-30 新奥特硅谷视频技术有限责任公司 一种关联性检索的方法和装置
CN105677727A (zh) * 2015-12-29 2016-06-15 上海律巢网络科技有限公司 数据检索及检索结果呈现方法和系统
CN105930470A (zh) * 2016-04-25 2016-09-07 安徽富驰信息技术有限公司 一种基于特征权重分析技术的文件检索方法

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN112463925A (zh) * 2020-12-01 2021-03-09 科大讯飞股份有限公司 案件卷宗处理方法、相关设备及可读存储介质

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
CN108694178A (zh) 2018-10-23
CN108694178B (zh) 2020-11-27

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
WO2018184427A1 (zh) 一种推荐司法知识的方法及装置
US11960556B2 (en) Techniques for presenting content to a user based on the user's preferences
US9898554B2 (en) Implicit question query identification
WO2018121153A1 (zh) 一种裁判文书的检索方法及装置
US8977625B2 (en) Inference indexing
US8078604B2 (en) Identifying executable scenarios in response to search queries
US20130332478A1 (en) Querying and integrating structured and instructured data
CN110069610A (zh) 基于Solr的检索方法、装置、设备和存储介质
WO2021146388A1 (en) Systems and methods for providing answers to a query
US9311388B2 (en) Semantic and contextual searching of knowledge repositories
CN109345282A (zh) 一种业务咨询的响应方法及设备
US20200272674A1 (en) Method and apparatus for recommending entity, electronic device and computer readable medium
US8626737B1 (en) Method and apparatus for processing electronically stored information for electronic discovery
WO2020074017A1 (zh) 基于深度学习的医学文献中关键词筛选方法及装置
CN110019785B (zh) 一种文本分类方法及装置
CN108228612B (zh) 一种提取网络事件关键词以及情绪倾向的方法及装置
CN103714118A (zh) 图书交叉阅读方法
US8700624B1 (en) Collaborative search apps platform for web search
US8914359B2 (en) Ranking documents with social tags
CN104123285A (zh) 搜索结果的导航方法及装置
IL248313A (en) Research on data-driven preference and semantic processing
CN110019670A (zh) 一种文本检索方法及装置
CN109117434B (zh) 裁判文书检索方法、装置、存储介质及处理器
CN111401047A (zh) 法律文书的争议焦点生成方法、装置及计算机设备
WO2017107651A1 (zh) 确定新闻之间相关性、多新闻之间相关性计算方法和装置

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 18780626

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 18780626

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1