More IA needed in AI: Interpretation assistance for coping with the problem of multiple structural interpretations

Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn , Issue , 1991, Pages 53-61

  Allen, Layman E ^a   Saxon, Charles S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXPERT SYSTEMS;

LEGAL RULES; STRUCTURAL INTERPRETATION;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 84865637703     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/112646.112652     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Layman E. Allen and Charles S. Saxon, "Multiple Interpretations of the Logical Structure of Legal Rules: Impediment or Boon to Legal Expert Systems?" in Logic Programming: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium, ed. Robert A. Kowalski and Kenneth A. Bowen, The MIT Press (1988).
2. Layman E. Allen and Charles S. Saxon, "Analysis of the Logical Structure of Legal Rules by a Modernized and Formalized Version of Hohfeld's Fundamental Legal Conceptions", in Automated Analysis of Legal Texts: Logic, Informatics, Law, ed. Antonio A. Martino and Fiorenza Socci Natali, Amsterdam, North-Holland (1986) 385-450.
3. For for other efforts to formalize Hohfeldian concepts, see: Frederic B. Fitch, "A Revision of Hohfeld's Theory of Legal Concepts", 9 Logique et Analyse 269 (1967).
4. Alan D. Cullison, "Logical Analysis of Legal Doctrine: The Normative Structure of Positive Law", 53 Iowa L. Rev. 1209 (1968).
5. Alan Ross Anderson, "Logic of Hohfeldian Propositions", 12 Logique et Analyse 231 (1970)
6. reprinted in 33 U. Pitt L. Rev. 29 (1971).
7. Philip Mullock, "Holmes on Contractual Duty", 33 U. Pitt L. Rev. 471 (1972).
8. Lars Lindahl, Position and Change: A Study in Law and Logic, Dordrecht-Holland/Boston, D. Reidel Publishing Company (1977).
9. John Finan, "Presumptions and Modal Logic: A Hohfeldian Approach", 13 akron L. rev. 10 (1979)
10. and "LAWGICAL: Jurisprudential and Logical Considerations", 15 Akron L. Rev. 675 (1982).
11. Structural ambiguities and their elimination by normalization techniques are discussed in detail in: Layman E. Allen and Charles S. Saxon, "Computer-Aided Normalizing and Unpacking: Some Interesting Machine-Processable Transformations of Legal Rules", in Computing Power and Legal Reasoning, ed. Charles Walter, St. Paul: West Publishing Company (1985)
12. "Some problems in designing expert systems to aid legal reasoning", Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM Press (May 1987) 94-103
13. "Automatic Generation of a Legal Expert System of Section 7 (2) of the United Kingdom Data Protection Act 1984", Theoria, No. 7-8-9, 269 (September 1988)
14. and "Relationship of Expert Systems to the Operation of a Legal System", Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Logica Informatica Diritto, Legal Expert Systems, Florence (1989).
15. See Alan Ross Anderson and Nuel D. Belnap Jr., Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1974).
16. U. S. C. A. §315
17. G. H. Von Wright, 60 Mind 1 (1951).