Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological, and hypothetical legal reasoning

Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 1-10

  Ashley, Kevin D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Analogical reasoning; Hypothetical reasoning; Legal ontologies

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT ANALOGIES; ANALOGICAL REASONING; DECISION RULES; DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE; HYPOTHETICAL REASONING; INCREMENTAL APPROACH; LEGAL CASE; LEGAL ONTOLOGY; LEGAL REASONING; MICROWORLD;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; ONTOLOGY;

CASE BASED REASONING;

EID: 70450191576     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1568234.1568236     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Aleven, V. (1997) Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples, Ph.D., U. Pittsburgh.
2. Aleven, V. (2003) "Using Background Knowledge in Case-Based Legal Reasoning" Artificial Intelligence 150(1-2):183-238.
3. Ashley, K. (1990) Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals (The MIT Press) based on 1988 Ph.D. TR88-01 U. Mass.
4. Ashley, K. and Brüninghaus, S. (2006) Computer Models for Legal Prediction. Jurimetrics Journal Vol. 46, pp. 309-352.
5. Ashley, K., Lynch, C., Pinkwart, N., and Aleven, V. (2008) A Process Model of Legal Argument with Hypotheticals. JURIX 2008. Firenze.
6. Ashley, K. and McLaren, M., (1995) Reasoning with Reasons in Case-Based Comparisons. In Veloso, M. Aamodt, A. (Eds.): ICCBR-95 LNCS (LNAI) 1010, pp. 133-144 Springer. Heidelberg.
7. Atkinson, K. and Bench-Capon, T. (2007): Argumentation and standards of proof. In ICAIL 2007, pp. 107-116. ACM Press.
8. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (2002). Representation of Case Law as an Argumentation Framework. In Bench-Capon et al (eds), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, 103-112. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
9. Bench-Capon, T. and Sartor, G. (2003) A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values, 150 Artificial Intelligence, 97-143.
10. Berman, D. and Hafner, C. (1993) Representing Teleological Structure in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: The Missing Link, in ICAIL 1993. pp. 50-59 (ACM Press) (1993).
11. Branting, L.K. (2003) "A reduction-graph model of precedent in legal analysis." Artificial Intelligence 150, pp. 59-95.
12. Breuker, J. and Hoekstra, R. (2004a). DIRECT: Ontology-based Discovery of Responsibility and Causality in Legal Cases: In Gordon, T. (eds.), Proceedings JURIX-2004, 115-126. IOS-Press: Amsterdam.
13. Breuker, J. and Hoekstra, R. (2004b) Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRI-Core. In Proc., EKAW04 Workshop on Core Ontologies in Ontology Engineering, 15-27.
14. Breuker, J., Valente, A., and Winkels, R. (2004) Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Information Management. Artificial Intelligence and Law, V.12, No. 4, pp. 241-277. Springer.
15. Chorley, A. and Bench-Capon, T. (2005) AGATHA: Automated Construction of Case Law Theories through Heuristic Search, ICAIL 2005, 45-54 ACM Press.
16. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K., and Gentner, D. (1989) The structuremapping engine: Algorithm and examples, Artificial Intelligence 41 (1) 1-63.
17. Eisenberg, M. (1988) The Nature of the Common Law, 99, Harvard U. Press.
18. Gewirtz, P. (1982) The Jurisprudence of Hypotheticals, Journal of Legal Education, 32: 120f.
19. Gordon, T. F., and Walton, D. (2006) Pierson vs. Post revisted - a reconstruction using the Carneades Argumentation Framework. In P. E. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon (Eds.) COMMA 2006, IOS Press.
20. Kolodner, J. (1993) Case-Based Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo.
21. Laera L, Tamma V, Euzenat J, and Bench-Capon T (2006) Arguing over ontology alignments. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Ontology Matching, Athens, Georgia, USA, pp 49-60.
22. Lindahl, L. (2004) Deduction and justification in the law. the role of legal terms and concepts. Ratio Juris 17:182-202.
23. MacCormick, D. and Summers, R. (ed.) (1997) Interpreting Precedents Ashgate/Dartmouth.
24. McCarty, L.T. and Sridharan, N. S. (1981) The Representation of an Evolving System of Legal Concepts: II. Prototypes and Deformations (LRP-TR-11. Lab. for CS Res. Rutgers U.).
25. McLaren, B. (2003) Extensionally Defining Principles and Cases in Ethics: an AI Model. Artificial Intelligence. v. 150, pp. 145-182.
26. Mitchell, T. (1997) Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill: New York.
27. Prakken, H. (2006) Artificial Intelligence and Law, Logic and Argument Schemes in D. Hitchcock and B. Verheij (eds.) Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Dordrecht: Springer.
28. Rissland, E. L. (1984) The Ubiquitous Dialectic, in T. O'Shea (Ed.) Proc. 6th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence Pisa, Italy. 367- 72 North-Holland.
29. Rissland, E.L. and Skalak, D.B. (1991) CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. Int'l J. of Man-Machine Studies 34(6):839-887.
30. Roth, B. and Verheij, B. (2004). Cases and dialectical arguments. An approach to case-based reasoning. 2d Int'l Workshop on Regulatory Ontologies. LNCS 3292, pp. 634-651. Springer.
31. Wyner, A. (2008) An Ontology in OWL for Legal Case-based Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence and Law.
32. Zarri, G. (2007) Ontologies and reasoning techniques for (legal) intelligent information retrieval systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15(3): 251-2.