A Goal-Dependent Abstraction for Legal Reasoning by Analogy

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 5, Issue 1-2, 1997, Pages 97-118

  Kakuta, Tokuyasu ^a   Haraguchi, Makoto ^b   Okubo, Yoshiaki ^b  

^a TOKYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

^b HOKKAIDO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Analogy; Goal dependent abstraction; Legal reasoning; Order sorted logic; Similarity; Taxonomic hierarchy

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION;

GOAL DEPENDENT ABSTRACTION; LEGAL REASONING; ORDER SORTED LOGIC; TAXONOMIC HIERARCHY;

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION;

EID: 0031101989     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/a:1008272013974     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Ashley, K. D. (1990). Modelling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypothetical. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
2. Beierle, C. et al. (1992). An Order-Sorted Logic for Knowledge Representation Systems. Artificial Intelligence 55:149-191.
3. Fujita, H. & Hasegawa, R. (1991). A Model Generation Theorem Prover in KL1 Using a Ramified-Shack Algorithm. In Logic Programming. Proceedings of the Eight International Conference, 535-548. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
4. Haraguchi, M. (1995). A Reasoning System for Legal Analogy. Machine Intelligence 14: 323-346.
5. Hart, H. L. A. (1958). Positivism and the Separation of Law and Mortals. Hanard Law Review 71: 593-629.
6. Inoue, K., Ohta, Y., Hasegawa, R. & Nakashima, M. (1993). Bottom-Up Abduction by Model Generation. In IJCAI-93. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1: 102-108. Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA.
7. Muggleton, S. (1988). A Strategy for Constructing New Predicates in First Order Logic. In EWSL 88. Proceedings of the Third European Working Session on Learning, 123-130. Pitman Publishing: London.
8. Muggleton, S. (1990). Inductive Logic Programming. In Arikawa, S. (ed.) Algorithmic Learning Theory, 42-62. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.
9. Nebel, B. (1990). Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems, LNAI 422. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.
10. Nitta, K., Wong, S. & Ohtake, Y. (1993). A Computational Model for Trial Reasoning. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20-29. Association for Computing Machinery: New York.
11. Ohtake, Y., Nitta, K., Maeda, S., Ono, M., Osaki, H. & Sakane, K. (1994). Legal Reasoning System HELIC-II. Transactions of Information Processing Society of Japan 35(6): 986-996.
12. Okubo, Y. & Haraguchi, M. (1994a). Planning with Abstraction Based on Partial Predicate Mappings. New Generation Computing - An International Journal 12(4): 409-437.
13. Okubo, Y. & Haraguchi, M. (1994b). Constructing Predicate Mappings for Goal-Dependent Abstraction. In Arikawa, S. (ed.) Algorithmic Learning Theory '94, LNAI872, 516-531. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.
14. Plaisted, D. A. (1981). Theorem Proving with Abstraction. Artificial Intelligence 16: 47-108.
15. Rouveirol, C. & Puget, J. F. (1990). Beyond Inversion of Resolution. In Machine Learning: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference, 122-130. Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA.
16. Tenenberg, J. D. (1989). Abstracting First-Order Theories. In Change of Representation and Inductive Bias, 67-69. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
17. Walter, C. (1988). Many-Sorted Unification. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 35(1): 1-17.
18. Yoshino, H., Haraguchi, M., Sakurai, S. & Kagayama, S. (1993). Towards a Legal Analogical Reasoning System. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 110-116. Association for Computing Machinery: New York.