|
 REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
Layman E. Allen and charles S. Saxon, "Multiple interpetations of the Logical Stmcture of Legal Rulee: Impediment or Boon to Legaf Expert Systems?" in Logic Prograrnning: Pro-ceedings of the fifth lnt ernational Conference and Symposium, ed. Robert A. Kowaleki and Kenneth A. Bowen, The MIT Press (19ss),
|
| |
2
|
Layman E. Allen and Charles S. Saxon, "Analysis of the Logical Stmcture of Legal Rules by a Modernized and forma-lized Version of HoMeld's fundamental Legal Conception," in Automated Analysis of Legal Texts: Logic, In formatks, Law, ed. Antonio A. Martino and fiorenza Socci Natdi, Amsterdam, North-Holland (1986) 385-45o. for for other efforts to forrnd-ize Hohfeldian concepts, see: frederic B. fitch, "A Revision of HoMeld's Theory of Legal Concepts," 9 Logique et Analyse 269 (1967). Alan D. Cullieon, "Logical Analysis of Legal Doctrine The Nornmtive Structure of Positive Law7 53 Iowa L. Rev. 1209 (1968). Alan %ss Anderson, "Logic of Hohfeldian Propositions," 12 Logique et Analyse 231 (1970), reprinted in 33 U, Pitt L. Rev. 29 (1971). Philip Mullock, "Holmes on Contr=tud Duty," 33 U. Pitt L. Rev. 471 (1972). Lars Lindahl, Position and Change: A Study in Law and L@, Dordrecht-Holland/Boston, D. ReideJ Publishing Company (1977). John finan, "Presumptions and Mdal L.+: A PL4ifeldbn A=p..acb,n 13 Akron L. 12.w. 19 (1979), and "LAWGICAL: Jurispmdential and Logical Consider-ations," 15 Akron L. Rev. 675 (1982).
|
 |
3
|
|
| |
4
|
Although these two interpretation are equivalent if the "If. then" and the "Provided, That" are interpreted as expressing single conditionals, they me different when the "If. then" is in-kqwtd as expr.sesing .s bieanditiand far m.+ s biemditianal interpretation the A) and B) alternatives lead to different results when the taxpayer is a citizen and has not earned $10,000 for any satisfactory notion of what is expressed by a single condi-tional (and while it is inappropriate to attempt here to specify just what constitutes such a satisfactory single condition, it should be indicated that the "material implication" of standard twc-vdued propositional logic is clearly unsatisfactory). See Alan Ross Anderson and Nuel D. Belnap Jr., Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Princeton Univemity Prese, Princeton (1974).
|
| |
5
|
Terms appearing in all capital letters are deibed terms. One of the most-needed reforms in careful legal drafting is a reliable way of signding that a term is being used in a defined sense. Using all capital letters is one convenient and relatively unobtrusive way to so signal. The definitions for the terms in all capitals in this article can be found in Alleu and Saxon, "Analysis of the Logical Structure of Legal Rules by a Modernized and formalized Vemion of HoMeld's l%ndamentd Legal Conception.
|
| |
6
|
In interpreting this -Xive instance of "shall" Alternative C) doea not differ from Alternative A) in the results that occur from these interpret atiom in given situatiom. However, the &oice made on this within-sentence ambiguity interects with the dioice made on the between- sentence ambiguity and afkct.s what the negative imtance of "shall" of Alternative B) of the in-terpretation of "If.. then" means and the results that occur horn that interpretation in the same situatiom.
|
| |
7
|
The MULTINT system is implemented on an IBM PC us-ing a combination of Pascal, C, and Prolog. The IA system for $315(a) from MULTINT will be available for demonstration at the conference.
|
| |
8
|
47 U. S.C.A. !3315
|
| |
9
|
The process of norrndir,in the expression of a set of legal rules, which includes specifying questions about their structural interpretation as well as specifying the constituent sentences for the normalized veruiom of all their structural interpretations, is set forth in detail in the references given in footnote 3 above.
|
| |
10
|
G. H. Von Wright, SO Mind 1 (1951).
|
CITED BY 9
|
|
Layman E. Allen , Charles S. Saxon, Better language, better thought, better communication: the A-Hohfeld language for legal analysis, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.219-228, May 21-24, 1995, College Park, Maryland, United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russell Allen , Philip Chuns , Andrew Mowbray , Graham Greenleaf, AustLll's aide — natural language legislative rulebases, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.223-224, May 2001, St. Louis, Missouri, United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adobe Acrobat
QuickTime
Windows Media Player
Real Player
Pdf
I.2