Artificial Intelligence and Law 3 (4):221-265 (1995)
A representation methodology for knowledge allowing multiple interpretations is described. It is based on the following conception of legal knowledge and its open texture. Since indeterminate, legal knowledge must be adapted to fit the circumstances of the cases to which it is applied. Whether a certain adaptation is lawful or not is measured by metaknowledge. But as this too is indeterminate, its adaptation to the case must be measured by metametaknowledge, etc. This hierarchical model of law is quite well-established and may serve well as a basis for a legal knowledge system. To account for the indeterminacy of law such a system should support the construction of different arguments for and against various interpretations of legal sources. However, automatizing this reasoning fully is unsound since it would imply a restriction to arguments defending interpretations anticipated at programming time. Therefore, the system must be interactive and the user''s knowledge be furnished in a principled way. Contrary to the widespread opinion that classical logic is inadequate for representing open-textured knowledge, the framework outlined herein is given a formalization in first order logic.
|Keywords||multiple interpretation open texture vagueness schemata metalogic programming metalogic knowledge representation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
The Semantic Conception of Truth: And the Foundations of Semantics.Alfred Tarski - 1943 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4 (3):341-376.
Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining. [REVIEW]David B. Skalak & Edwina L. Rissland - 1992 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (1):3-44.
Citations of this work BETA
Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law.Trevor Bench-Capon & Henry Prakken - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):153-174.
Similar books and articles
Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Information Management.Joost Breuker, André Valente & Radboud Winkels - 2004 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):241-277.
Arguing About Goals: The Diminishing Scope of Legal Reasoning. [REVIEW]Pauline Westerman - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (2):211-226.
A Knowledge Engineering Framework for Intelligent Retrieval of Legal Case Studies.Adel Saadoun, Jean-Louis Ermine, Claude Belair & Jean-Mark Pouyot - 1997 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (3):179-205.
Ontologies of Professional Legal Knowledge as the Basis for Intelligent IT Support for Judges.V. R. Benjamins, J. Contreras, P. Casanovas, M. Ayuso, M. Becue, L. Lemus & C. Urios - 2004 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):359-378.
Representing and Using Legal Knowledge in Integrated Decision Support Systems: Datalex Workstations. [REVIEW]Graham Greenleaf, Andrew Mowbray & Peter Dijk - 1995 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 3 (1-2):97-142.
A Methodology to Create Legal Ontologies in a Logic Programming Based Web Information Retrieval System.José Saias & Paulo Quaresma - 2004 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):397-417.
Isomorphism and Legal Knowledge Based Systems.T. J. M. Bench-Capon & F. P. Coenen - 1992 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (1):65-86.
Explanation-Based Interpretation of Open-Textured Concepts in Logical Models of Legislation.Stefania Costantini & Gaetano Aurelio Lanzarone - 1995 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 3 (3):191-208.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads38 ( #134,027 of 2,158,357 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #194,528 of 2,158,357 )
How can I increase my downloads?