Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Model for knowledge and legal expert systems

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a four layer model for working with legal knowledge in expert systems. It distinguishes five sources of knowledge. Four contain basic legal knowledge found in published and unpublished sources. The fifth consists of legal metaknowledge. In the model the four basic legal knowledge sources are placed at the lowest level. The metaknowledge is placed at levels above the other four knowledge sources. The assumption is that the knowledge is represented only once. The use of metaknowledge at various levels should make it possible to use the appropriate knowledge for the problem presented to the system. The knowledge has to be represented as closely to the original format as possible for this purpose. Suitable representation formalisms for the various types of knowledge in the five knowledge sources are discussed. It is not possible to indicate a ‘best’ representation formalism for each knowledge source.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, L. E. & Saxon, C. S. 1991. More IA needed in AI: Interpretation Assistance for Coping with the Problem of Multiple Structural Interpretations. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 53. Oxford: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. 1989. Toward a Computational Theory of Arguing with Precedents. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 93. Vancouver: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. 1988. Modelling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Ph.D. Dissertation, COINS Technical report 88–01, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench Capon, T. & Coenen, F. 1991. Exploiting Isomorphism: Development of a KBS to Support British Coal Insurance Claims. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 62. Oxford: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench Capon, T. J. M. 1989. Deep Models, Normative Reasoning and Legal Expert Systems. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Vancouver: Association for Computing Machinery, 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. H. & Hafner, C. 1987. Indeterminacy: A Challenge to Logic Based Models of Legal Reasoning. In Yearbook of Law Computers and Technology. Volume 3, Butterworths, London, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biagioli, C., Mariani, P. & Tiscornia, D. 1987. ESPLEX: A Rule and Conceptual Model for Representing Statutes. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 240. Boston: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bing, J. 1987. Designing Text Retrieval Systems for Conceptual Searching. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. 43. Boston: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourcier, D. 1987. Ces systèmes dits experts, ou comment passer du droit, in Informatique et droit: 20 ans d'experience, ADIJ, vol. IV, Paris, 183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breuker, J. & Wiellinga, B. 1988. Models of Expertise in Knowledge Acquisition. Memorandum 103 of the VF-project ‘Acquisition of expertise’, University of Amsterdam, Department of Social Science Informatics.

  • Capper, P. & Susskind, R. E. 1988. Latent Damage law — The Expert System. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franken, H. 1983. Jurist en computer: theoretische achtergronden. In Wild, A. H. de, Eilders, B. (eds.), Jurist en computer, 13. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, A. 1989. Representing Developing Legal Doctrine. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 16. Vancouver: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardener, A. v.d. L. 1987. An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R., Dyer, M. G. & Flowers, M. 1987. Precedent-Based Legal Reasoning and Knowledge Acquisition in Contract Law: A Process Model. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 210. Boston: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf, G., Mowbray, A. & Tyree, A. L. 1987. Expert Systems in Law: The Datalex Project. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 9. Boston: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf, G., Mowbray, A. & Thyree, A. L. 1991. The Datalex Legal Workstation — Integrating Tools for Lawyers. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 215. Oxford: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guibourg, R. A. 1986. Sequences and Levels in the Legal System, in Martino, A. A. & Socci Natali, F. (eds.), Automated Analysis of Legal Texts, 69. Amsterdam/New York/Oxford/Tokyo: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, C. D. 1981. An Information Retrieval System Based on a Computer Model of Legal Knowledge. Ann Arbor: UMI Research press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haft, F., Jones, R. P. & Wetter, Th. 1987. A Natural Language Based Expert System for Consultation and Tutoring — The LEX Project. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 75. Boston: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C. 1988. Non-inferentiële kennis in juridische expertsystemen. Proceedings of the First Dutch AI Conference, 65

  • Hayes-Roth, F., Waterman, D. A. & Lenat, D. B. (eds.). 1983. Building Expert Systems. Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpf, J. 1989. Quality Assurance of Legal Expert Systems. In Martino, A. A. (ed.), Pre-Proceedings of the III International Conference on LOGICA, INFORMATICA, DIRITTO, Vol. 1, 411.

  • Kracht, D., Smiths, J. M. & Weusten, M. C. M. (1988), Advisory Systems for Legal Questions. In Herrestad, H. & Maesel, D. S., Five Articles on AI and Legal Expert Systems, COMPLEX 13/88, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. 1987. Intelligent Legal Information Systems: An Update. Law and Computers, The Journal of the Law and Computers Association of Japan 5: 196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwenhuis, M. A. 1989. Tessec: een expert systeem voor de Algemene Bijstandswet. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwenhuis, M. A. 1987. Constructie en instandhouding van een zuiver kennisbestand, Kennissystemen, jaargang 1, nr. 2, 25.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Noortwijk, C. 1990. Criteria in the Juricas Project. In Kracht, D., Vey Mestdagh, C. N. J. & Svensson, J. S. (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems, an Overview of Criteria for Practical Validation and Use. Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdorp, G. J. van, Walker, R. F., Schrickx, J. A., Groendijk, C. & Berg, P. H. van den. 1991. Networks at Work: A Connectionist Approach to Non-Deductive Legal Reasoning. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artifical Intelligence and Law, 278. Oxford: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdorp, G. J. van & Walker, R. F. [1990]. A Neural Network Approach to Open Texture. In Kaspersen, H. W. K. & Oskamp, A. (eds.), Amongst Friends in Computers and Law, 279. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oskamp. A. 1990. Het ontwikkelen van juridische expertsystemen. Een theoretische beschouwing. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oskamp, A., Walker, R. F., Schrickx, J. A. & Berg, P. H. van den 1989. PROLEXS, Divide and Rule: A Legal Application. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 54. Vancouver: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oskamp, A. 1989. Knowledge, representation and Legal Expert systems. In Vandenberghe, G. (ed.), Advanced Topics in Computer/law, 195. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oskamp, A., 1986. Expertsystemen en hun toepassing in het recht, Ars Aequi, Special Rechtsinformatica, 692.

  • Philipps, L. 1986. Using an Expert System in Testing Legal Rules. In Martino, A. A. & Socci Natali, F. (eds.), Automatic Analysis of Legal Texts, 703. Amsterdam/New York/Oxford/Tokyo: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. & Schrickx, J. 1991. Isomorphic Models for Rules and Exceptions in Legislation. In Breuker, J. A., Mulder, R. V. De, Haje, J. C. (eds.) Legal Knowledge Based Systems, Legal Reasoning, 17-Lelystad: Vermande.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. 1991. A Tool in Modelling Disagreement in Law: Preferring the Most Specific Argument. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 165. Oxford: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purdy, R. D. 1989. Knowledge and Tools in Building Grandjur 1.1. In the Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 201. Vancouver: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L. 1989. Dimension-Based Analysis of Hypotheticals from Supreme Court Oral Argument. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law III. Vancouver: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauss, M. (ed.). 1988. Systèmes experts et droit. Brussels: Story Scientia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlobohm, D. A. & Waterman, D. A. 1987. Explanation for an Expert System that Performs Estate Planning. In the Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18. Boston: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sergot, M. 1991. The Representation of Law in Computer Programs: A Survey and Comparison. Complex 1/91, Tano A. S., Oslo.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sergot, M., Cory, T., Hammond, P., Kowalski, R., Kriwaczek, F. & Sadri, F. 1986. Formalisation of the British Nationality Act, in Yearbook of Law Computers & Technology, vol. 2, Butterworths, 40.

  • Susskind, R. E. 1987.Expert Systems in Law. Oxford: Claredon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, R. E. 1989. The Latent Damage System: A Jurisprudential Analysis. In the Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 23. Vancouver: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. F. 1992. An Expert System Architecture for Heterogeneous Domains. A Case Study in the Legal Field. Thesis Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, A-D Druk B. V., Zeist.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. F., Oskamp, A., Schrickx, J. A. Opdorp, G. J. van & Berg, P. H. van den. 1991. PROLEXS: Creating Law and Order in a Heterogeneous Domain. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 35.

  • Walker, R. F., Zeinstra, P. G. N. & Berg, P. H. v.d. 1989. A Model to Model Knowledge About Knowledge. In Vandenberghe, G. (ed.), Advanced Topics in Computer/Law, 235. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. F. & Berg, P. H. van den 1988. Prolexs, and Object Oriented Legal Expert System. In Herrestad, H. & Maesel, D. S., Five articles on AI and legal expert Systems, COMPLEX 13/88, Universitetsforlaget Oslo, 8.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer/Law Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Anja Oskamp

Authors
  1. Anja Oskamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oskamp, A. Model for knowledge and legal expert systems. Artif Intell Law 1, 245–274 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00186723

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00186723

Key words

Search

Navigation