Take a look at the new version of this page: [ beta version ]. Tell us what you think.

ABSTRACT

As knowledge representation tools become more sophisticated, and computer systems increase in power and ubiquity, the prospects of building practical applications based on the representation of large amounts of legislation draw closer. In this paper we reflect on our experience with developing a knowledge representation language for legal rules and an inference engine for this language in the Estrella project, in order to reconsider the principles which should guide the representation of legislation. One common demand, based largely on software engineering considerations relating to maintenance, verification and validation, is that representations should be isomorphic to their sources. We explore this notion by representing a fragment of German Family Law using our tools. We show that there are several different ways of representing even this small and simple fragment of law in an isomorphic fashion. Moreover these differences matter, in terms of where the burden of proof is allocated, in terms of the explanations produced, and in terms of the operational procedures that are reflected.

REFERENCES

• 1: T. Bench-Capon and P. Leng. Developing heuristics for the argument based explanation of negation in logic programs. In Proceedings of the AAAI-Workshop on Computational Dialectics, 1994, pages 1--8, 1994.
• 2: T. J. M. Bench-Capon and F. P. Coenen. Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1(1): 65--86, 1992.
• 3: T. J. M. Bench-Capon, D. Lowes, and A. M. McEnery. Argument-based explanation of logic programs. Knowl.-Based Syst., 4(3): 177--183, 1991.
• 4: T. J. M. Bench-Capon , G. O. Robinson , T. W. Routen , M. J. Sergot, Logic programming for large scale applications in law: A formalisation of supplementary benefit legislation, Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.190-198, May 27-29, 1997, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/41735.41757]
• 5: Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon , Pepijn R. S. Visser, Ontologies in legal information systems; the need for explicit specifications of domain conceptualisations, Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.132-141, June 30-July 03, 1997, Melbourne, Australia [doi>10.1145/261618.261646]
• 6: T. F. Gordon, Oblog-2: A hybrid knowledge representation system for defeasible reasoning, Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.231-239, May 27-29, 1997, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/41735.41761]
• 7: T. F. Gordon. Visualizing carneades argument graphs. Law, Probability and Risk, 6 (1--4): 109--17, 2007.
• 8: Thomas F. Gordon, Constructing Legal Arguments with Rules in the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF), Computable Models of the Law: Languages, Dialogues, Games, Ontologies, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008 [doi>10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_11]
• 9: Thomas F. Gordon , Henry Prakken , Douglas Walton, The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof, Artificial Intelligence, v.171 n.10-15, p.875-896, July, 2007 [doi>10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.010]
• 10: T. R. Gruber , P. R. Cohen, Design for acquisition: principles of knowledge-system design to facilitate knowledge acquisition, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, v.26 n.2, p.143-159, Feb. 1987 [doi>10.1016/S0020-7373(87)80088-3]
• 11: Peter Johnson , David Mead, Legislative knowledge base systems for public administration: some practical issues, Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.108-117, May 1991, Oxford, England [doi>10.1145/112646.112660]
• 12: Benjamin Johnston , Guido Governatori, Induction of defeasible logic theories in the legal domain, Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 24-28, 2003, Scotland, United Kingdom [doi>10.1145/1047788.1047834]
• 13: J. Karpf. Quality Assurance of Legal Expert Systems. Jurimatics No2, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, 1989.
• 14: H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 7(1), 1997.
• 15: H. Prakken and J. Schrickx. Isomorphic models for rules and exceptions in legislation. In Proceedings of Jurix 1991, pages 17--27, 1991.
• 16: G. Sartor. Defeasibility in legal reasoning. In Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning, pages 119--157. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1995.
• 17: M. J. Sergot , A. S. Kamble , K. K. Bajaj, Indian central civil service pension rules: a case study in logic programming applied to regulations, Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.118-127, May 1991, Oxford, England [doi>10.1145/112646.112661]
• 18: M. J. Sergot , F. Sadri , R. A. Kowalski , F. Kriwaczek , P. Hammond , H. T. Cory, The British Nationality Act as a logic program, Communications of the ACM, v.29 n.5, p.370-386, May 1986 [doi>10.1145/5689.5920]
• 19: André Valente , Joost Breuker, ON-LINE: an architecture for modelling legal information, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.307-315, May 21-24, 1995, College Park, Maryland, United States [doi>10.1145/222092.222265]
• 20: Saskia van de Ven , Joost Breuker , Rinke Hoekstra , Lars Wortel, Automated Legal Assessment in OWL 2, Proceeding of the 2008 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference, p.170-175, July 08, 2008
• 21: Tom M. van Engers , Rik Gerrits , Margherita Boekenoogen , Erwin Glassée , Patries Kordelaar, POWER: using UML/OCL for modeling legislation - an application report, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.157-167, May 2001, St. Louis, Missouri, United States [doi>10.1145/383535.383554]
• 22: Robert W. Van Kralingen , Pepijn R.S. Visser , Trevor J.M. Bench—Capon , H. Jaap Van Den Herik, A principled approach to developing legal knowledge systems, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.51 n.6, p.1127-1154, Dec. 1999 [doi>10.1006/ijhc.1999.0300]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.1 Applications and Expert Systems
          Subjects: Law

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.3 Deduction and Theorem Proving
      I.2.4 Knowledge Representation Formalisms and Methods

  K. Computing Milieux
  K.5 LEGAL ASPECTS OF COMPUTING
      K.5.0 General

General Terms:
Algorithms, Theory