|Abstract||In the 1970s, we conceived of a rule explanation as supplying the causal and social context that justifies a rule, an objective documentation for why a rule is correct. Today we would call such descriptions post-hoc design rationales, not proving the rules correctness, but providing a means for later interpreting why the rule was written and facilitating later improvements.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Donna M. Summerfield (1990). On Taking the Rabbit of Rule-Following Out of the Hat of Representation: A Response to Pettit's The Reality of Rule-Following. Mind 99 (395):425-432.
Jacob Paroush (1997). Order Relations Among Efficient Decision Rules. Theory and Decision 43 (3):209-218.
Mark A. Hall (1994). The Problems with Rule-Based Rationing. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (4):315-332.
Wes Sharrock & Graham Button (1999). Do the Right Thing! Rule Finitism, Rule Scepticism and Rule Following. Human Studies 22 (2-4):193-210.
Philip Pettit (1990). The Reality of Rule-Following. Mind 99 (393):1-21.
John Zeleznikow, George Vossos & Daniel Hunter (1993). The IKBALS Project: Multi-Modal Reasoning in Legal Knowledge Based Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (3):169-203.
Luba Sapir (1998). The Optimality of the Expert and Majority Rules Under Exponentially Distributed Competence. Theory and Decision 45 (1):19-36.
Karsten R. Stueber (2005). How to Think About Rules and Rule Following. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35 (3):307-323.
Mingqiang Xu, Kaoru Hirota & Hajime Yoshino (1999). A Fuzzy Theoretical Approach to Case-Based Representation and Inference in CISG. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #145,498 of 549,014 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,014 )
How can I increase my downloads?