Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2) (1997)
|Abstract||Case-based reasoning has played an important role in legal reasoning systems. As one criteria for similarity of cases, temporal relationsamong affairs in legal cases should be compared. Thus far in many legalreasoning systems, cases have been described as sequences of pointwiseevents, or at best, simple time intervals, and they have been related bypredicates such as before, after, while,and so on. However, such relations may depend on each implementer'spersonal view, and also require much labor to write down by hand. In this paper, we first propose a classification of affair types by their temporal features, and according to those types, we propose several assumption rules that prescribe the temporal relations between affair types. The temporal relations are automatically generated by these rules. Thereafter, we discuss how thesetemporal relations work in the comparison of similarity of cases. Inthe process of comparison, inadequate temporal relations need to beamended. For this purpose, we introduce revision rules, that refute theresults of assumption rules.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeffrey Grupp, The Impossibility of Temporal Relations Between Non-Identical Times: New Arguments for Presentism.
Gary Marcus (2005). Opposites Detract: Why Rules and Similarity Should Not Be Viewed as Opposite Ends of a Continuum. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):28-29.
Delia Graff Fara (2012). Possibility Relative to a Sortal. In Karen Bennett & Dean W. Zimmerman (eds.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, volume 7. Oxford University Press.
Ernâni Magalhães (2006). Armstrong on Thespatio-Temporality of Universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 84 (2):301 – 308.
Jan-Willem Romeijn (2006). Analogical Predictions for Explicit Similarity. Erkenntnis 64 (2):253 - 280.
Ron Artstein & Nissim Francez (2006). Plurality and Temporal Modification. Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (3):251 - 276.
Steven Sloman (2005). Avoiding Foolish Consistency. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):33-34.
Carole D. Hafner & Donald H. Berman (2002). The Role of Context in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: Teleological, Temporal, and Procedural. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (1-3).
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?