Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Afterword: data, knowledge, and e-discovery

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

Abstract

Research in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Law has maintained an emphasis on knowledge representation and formal reasoning during a period when statistical, data-driven approaches have ascended to dominance within AI as a whole. Electronic discovery is a legal application area, with substantial commercial and research interest, where there are compelling arguments in favor of both empirical and knowledge-based approaches. We discuss the cases for both perspectives, as well as the opportunities for beneficial synergies.

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

Notes

  1. As a separate issue, the term “concept search” is widely and ambiguously used in discussions of (and marketing of) e-discovery (see Sect. 3.2 of Oard et al. (2010)).

  2. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 US 579 (1993)

  3. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Felman Prod., Inc., 2010 WL 1990555 (S.D. W. Va. May 18, 2010)

References

  • Ashley KD, Bridewell W (2010) Emerging AI & Law approaches to automating analysis and retrieval of electronically stored information in discovery proceedings. Artif Intell Law 18. doi:10.1007/s10506-010-9098-4

  • Ashley KD, Baron JR, Conrad JG, Light M, Logan D (2008) Cross-border EDiscovery/E-Disclosure workshop (DESI III). ICAIL 2009 workshop proposal

  • Attfield S, Blandford A (2010) Discovery-led refinement in e-discovery investigations: sensemaking, cognitive ergonomics and system design. Artif Intell Law

  • Baron JR, Lewis DD, Oard DW (2006) TREC-2006 legal track overview. In: The 15th text retrieval conference (TREC 2006) Proceedings, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, pp 79–98

  • Blair DC, Maron ME (1985) An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system. Commun ACM 28(3):289–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekar R, Chickering M, Ipeirotis P, Mason W, Provost F (2010) HCOMP ’10: Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD workshop on human computation. ACM, Washington, DC

  • Church K (2004) Speech and language processing: can we use the past to predict the future? In: Text, speech and dialogue: TSD 2004 Proceedings, Springer, Brno, Czech Republic, LNAI, 3206:3–13

  • Conrad JG (2010) E-Discovery revisited: the need for artificial intelligence beyond information retrieval. Artif Intell Law 18. doi:10.1007/s10506-010-9096-6

  • Dixon L, Gill B (2001) Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in federal civil cases since the Daubert decision. RAND Institute for Civil Justice, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  • Getoor L, Taskar B (2007) Introduction to statistical relational learning. Adaptive computation and machine learning. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes PJ, Weinstein SP (1990) CONSTRUE-TIS: a system for content-based indexing of a database of news stories. In: Innovative applications of artificial intelligence 2, Washington, DC, pp 49–64

  • Hendler J (2008) Avoiding another AI winter. IEEE Intell Syst 23(2):2–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan C, Bauer RS, Brassil D (2010) Automation of legal sensemaking in e-discovery. Artif Intell Law 18. doi:10.1007/s10506-010-9100-1

  • Kershaw A, Howie J (2010) eDiscovery institute survey on predictive coding. Tech. Rep., Electronic Discovery Institute

  • Lewis DD (1991) Data extraction as text categorization: An experiment with the MUC-3 corpus. In: Proceedings of the 3rd conference on message understanding, San Diego, CA, pp 245–255

  • Lewis DD, Sebastiani F (2001) Report on the workshop on operational text classification systems (OTC-01). ACM SIGIR Forum 35(2):8–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oard DW, Baron JR, Hedin B, Lewis DD, Tomlinson S (2010) Evaluation of information retrieval for E-discovery. Artif Intell Law 18. doi:10.1007/s10506-010-9093-9

  • Privault C, ONeill J, Ciriza V, Renders J (2010) A new tangible user interface for machine learning document review. Artif Intell Law 18. doi:10.1007/s10506-010-9090-z

  • Turtle H (1995) Text retrieval in the legal world. Artif Intell Law 3(1–2):5–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verykios VS, Bertino E, Fovino IN, Provenza LP, Saygin Y, Theodoridis Y (2004) State-of-the-art in privacy preserving data mining. ACM SIGMOD Rec 33(1):50–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vleduts-Stokolov N (1987) Concept recognition in an automatic text-processing system for the life sciences. J Am Soc Info Sci 38(4):269–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Kevin Ashley for his helpful feedback. All responsibility for errors remains with me.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. David D. Lewis Consulting, 1341 W. Fullerton Ave., #251, Chicago, IL, 60614, USA

    David D. Lewis

Authors
  1. David D. Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David D. Lewis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lewis, D.D. Afterword: data, knowledge, and e-discovery. Artif Intell Law 18, 481–486 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-010-9101-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-010-9101-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation