An ontology in OWL for legal case-based reasoning

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 361-387

  Wyner, Adam ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Case based reasoning; Legal cases; Legal reasoning; Ontology; OWL

Indexed keywords

CASE BASED REASONING; INFORMATION THEORY; PAPER; SEMANTIC WEB;

CENTRAL COMPONENTS; GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS; INTERMEDIATE CONCEPTS; LEGAL CASES; LEGAL REASONING; ONTOLOGICAL ANALYSES; ONTOLOGICAL REASONINGS; OWL; OWL ONTOLOGIES; SEMANTIC WEB APPLICATIONS; SUPPORT AUTOMATED; WEB ONTOLOGY LANGUAGES;

ONTOLOGY;

EID: 58149197602     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: 15728382     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10506-008-9070-8     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Aleven V (1997) Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh
2. Aleven V, Ashley KD (1993) What law students need to know to win. In: ICAIL '93: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 152-161. doi: 10.1145/158976.158995
3. Aleven V, Ashley KD (1995) Doing things with factors. In: ICAIL '95: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 31-41. doi: 10.1145/222092.222106
4. Antoniou G, van Harmelen F (2004) A semantic web primer. The MIT Press
5. Antoniou G, Assmann U, Baroglio C, Decker S, Henze N, Patranjan PL, Tolksdorf R (eds) (2007) Reasoning web, Third international summer school 2007, Dresden, Germany, September 3-7, 2007, Tutorial lectures, lecture notes in computer science, vol 4636. Springer
6. Ashley K (1990) Modeling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. Bradford Books/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
7. Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2003) A predictive role for intermediate legal concepts. In: Bourcier D (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems, Proceedings of Jurix 2003, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 153-162. http://www.jurix.nl/pdf/j03-21.pdf
8. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2006) Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13:93-131. doi: 10.1007/s10506-006- 9003-3
9. Bench-Capon TJ (1991) Knowledge based systems applied to law: a framework for discussion. In: Bench-Capon TJ (ed) Knowledge based systems and legal applications, Academic Press, pp 329-342
10. Bench-Capon T (1997) Arguing with cases. In: Oskamp A, et al (eds) JURIX 1997, Gerard Noodt Instituut, Nijmegen, pp 85-100
11. Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence 150(1-2):97-143. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00108-5
12. Bench-Capon TJ, Visser PR (1996) Deep models, ontologies and legal knowledge based systems. In: Legal knowledge based systems. JURIX 1996: The nineth annual conference, Tilburg University Press, pp 3-14
13. Breuker J et al (2002) Ontologies for legal information serving and knowledge management. In: Horty J, Daskalopulu A, Winkels R (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: proceedings of Jurix 2002, IOS Press, pp 73-82
14. Brüninghaus S, Ashley KD (2003a) Combining model-based and case-based reasoning for predicting the outcomes of legal cases. In: Bridge D, Ashley KD (eds) Case-based reasoning research and development: proceedings of the fifth international conference on case-based reasoning (ICCBR-03), Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, Trondheim, Norway, Lecture notes in artificial intelligence LNAI 2689, pp 65-79
15. Brüninghaus S, Ashley KD (2003b) Predicting the outcome of case-based legal arguments. In: Sartor G (ed) Proceedings of the ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL003), ACM Press, New York, NY, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, pp 233-242. http://www. geocities.com/bruninghaus/papers/bruninghausashley-icail03.pdf
16. A Chorley T Bench-Capon 2005 An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 3-4 323 371
17. A Chorley TJM Bench-Capon 2005 Agatha: Using heuristic search to automate the construction of case law theories Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 1 9 51
18. Cohen H, Lefebvre C (eds) (2005) Handbook of categorization in cognitive science. Elsevier Science
19. Corcho Ó, Fernández-López M, Gómez- Pérez A, López-Cima A (2003) Building legal ontologies with methontology and webode. In: Benjamins VR, Casanovas P, Breuker J, Gangemi A (eds) Law and the semantic web, vol 3369, pp 142-157
20. Gordon TF, Karacapilidis NI (1997) The zeno argumentation framework. In: International conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 10-18. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/gordon97zeno.html
21. Henderson J, Bench-Capon T (2001) Dynamic arguments in a case law domain. In: ICAIL '01: proceedings of the 8th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 60-69. doi: 10.1145/383535.383542
22. Hoekstra R, Breuker J, Bello MD, Boer A (2007) The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts. In: Legal ontologies and artificial intelligence techniques, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
23. Jalote P (2005) An integrated approach to software engineering. Springer
24. RWV Kralingen PRS Visser TJM Bench-Capon HJVD Herik 1999 A principled approach to developing legal knowledge systems International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 51 1127 1154
25. Laera L, Tamma V, Euzenat J, Bench-Capon T (2006) Arguing over ontology alignments. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on ontology matching, Athens, Georgia, USA, pp 49-60. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-225/paper5.pdf
26. L Lindahl 2004 Deduction and justification in the law. the role of legal terms and concepts Ratio Juris 17 182 202
27. Noy N, McGuinness D (2000) Ontology development 101: a guide to creating your first ontology. Technical report, Stanford University. http://protege. stanford.edu
28. JL Pollock 1987 Defeasible reasoning Cognitive Science 11 481 518
29. Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(3-4):331-368. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/prakken96dialectical.html
30. Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1991) CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(6):839-887. doi: 10.1016/0020-7373(91)90013-W
31. EL Rissland DB Skalak MT Friedman 1996 BankXX: supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 1 1 71
32. EL Rissland KD Ashley LK Branting 2006 Case-based reasoning and law The Knowledge Engineering Review 20 293 298
33. A Ross 1957 Tû-tû Harvard Law Review 70 812 825
34. Roth B, Verheij B (2004) Cases and dialectical arguments. An approach to case-based reasoning. In: Meersman R, Tari Z, Corsaro A (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems 2004: OTM 2004 workshops. WORM'04: the second international workshop on regulatory ontologies. Springer, Heidelberg, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3292, pp 634-651
35. Sattler U (2007) Reasoning in description logics: basics, extensions, and relatives. In: Antoniou G, Assman U, Baroglio C, Decker S (eds) Reasoning web, LNCS 4636, Springer, pp 154-182
36. M Uschold M Gruninger 1996 Ontologies: principles, methods and applications Knowledge Engineering Review 11 2 93 155
37. Wittgenstein L (1953) Philosophical investigations. Blackwell, Oxford
38. Wyner A, Bench-Capon T (2007) Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In: Lodder AR, Mommers L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2007, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 139-149
39. Zeng Y, Wang R, Zeleznikow J, Kemp EA (2005) Knowledge representation for the intelligent legal case retrieval. In: Khosla R, Howlett RJ, Jain LC (eds) KES (1). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3681, Springer, pp 339-345