Abstract
In this short note, we discuss several aspectsof “dimensions” and the related constructof “factors”. We concentrate on those aspectsthat are relevant to articles in this specialissue, especially those dealing with the analysisof the wild animal cases discussed inBerman and Hafner's 1993 ICAIL article. We reviewthe basic ideas about dimensions,as used in HYPO, and point out differences withfactors, as used in subsequent systemslike CATO. Our goal is to correct certainmisconceptions that have arisen over the years.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh Graduate Program in Intelligent Systems, unnumbered technical report, Learning Research and Development Center.
Ashley, K. D. (1987). Modelling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Ph.D. diss., Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Ashley, K. D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Ashley, K. D. and Aleven, V. (1991). Toward an Intelligent Tutoring System for Teaching Law Students to Argue with Cases. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL-91), 42–52. ACM Press: New York.
Ashley, K. D. and Aleven, V. (1997). Reasoning Symbolically About Partially Matched Cases. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 335–341. Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco.
Ashley, K. D. and Rissland, E. L. (1988). A Case-Based Approach to Modelling Legal Expertise. IEEE Expert 3(3): 70–77.
Bench-Capon, T. (1997). Arguing with Cases. In Proceedings of JURIX 97, 85–100. GNI: Nijmegen.
Bench-Capon, T. and Sartor, G. (2001). Theory Based Explanation of Case Law Domains. In Proceedings Eighth International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law. Washington University, St. Louis, MO. ACM Press: New York.
Hage, J. (1997). Reasoning with Rules. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1998).Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6(2–4): 231–287.
Rissland, E. L. (1980). Example Generation. In Proceedings Third National Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, Victoria, BC., May, 280–288.
Rissland, E. L. (1983). Examples in Legal Reasoning: Legal Hypotheticals. In Proceedings Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-83), 90–93. Karlsruhe, Germany, August.
Rissland, E. L., Valcarce, E. M., and Ashley, K. D. (1984). Explaining and Arguing with Examples. In Proceedings Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-84), 288–294. Austin, TX, August.
Rissland, E. L. and Ashley, K. D. (1987). A Case-Based System for Trade Secrets Law. In Proceedings First International Conference on AI and Law, (ICAIL-87), 60-66. Northeastern University, Boston, MA, May. ACM Press: New York.
Rissland, E. L. and Skalak, D. B. (1991). CABARET: Statutory Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies (IJMMS) 34: 839–887.
Rissland, E. L., Skalak, D. B., and Friedman, M. T. (1996). BankXX: Supporting Legal Arguments through Heuristic Retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(1): 1–71.
Rissland, E. L. and Soloway, E. M. (1980). Overview of an Example Generation System. In Proceedings First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-80), 256–258. Stanford, August.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rissland, E.L., Ashley, K.D. A note on dimensions and factors. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10, 65–77 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019543817123
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019543817123