Abstract
This paper addresses the problems that lawyers experience retrieving information from legal-text databases. Traditional access mechanisms of text databases require users to know how information is stored. We propose a method for index organisation which shields lawyers from the internal storage structures and which allows them to address the legal databases in their own legal terms. The proposed index is based on a model of legal tasks as opposed to traditional database indexes which represent the contents of the database. We will lay out the architecture of an information system in which this task model is used to determine the information need, to retrieve relevant documents and to give methodical guidance for the legal task itself. To account for the design of a task-based legal information retrieval system, a substantial part of this paper is devoted to analysis and representation of legal tasks.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agosti, M., Colotti, R., & Gradenigo, G. 1991. A two-level hypertext retrieval model for legal data, in: A. Bookstein, Y. Chiaramella, G. Salton, and V. V. Raghaven (eds.), Proceedings of SIGIR’ 91 Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, October 1991, New York (NY): ACM, pp. 316-325.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. & Staniford, G. 1995. PLAID - Proactive Legal Assistance, in: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, College Park MD, New York (NY): ACM, pp. 81-87.
Bruza, P. D. 1993. Stratified Information Disclosure: A Synthesis between Hypermedia and Informa-tion Retrieval, Phd. thesis University of Nijmegen, Amsterdam: Thesis.
Collins, A. & Gentner, D. A. 1980. A Framework for a cognitive theory of writing, in: L. W. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg (eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing. Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum.
Conklin, J. 1987. Hypertext: An introduction and survey, in: Computer, Vol. 20, No.9. New York, pp. 17-41.
Dick, J. P. 1991. Representation of legal text for conceptual retrieval, in: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Oxford 1991, New York (NY): ACM, 1993, pp. 244-253.
Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum. [
Hage, J. C., Leenes, R., & Lodder, A. R. 1994. Hard cases: A procedural approach, in: Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vol. 2, pp. 113-167.
Hayes, J. R. & Flower, L. S. 1980. Identifying the Organisation of Writing Processes, in: L.W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing. Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum.
MacCormick, N. 1980. Legal deduction, legal predicates and expert systems, in: International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. Vol. V, No.14, pp. 181-202.
Matthijssen, L. J. 1995. An Intelligent Interface for Legal Databases. in: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, College Park MD, New York (NY): ACM, pp. 71-80.
Matthijssen L. J. 1996. Information Retrieval for legal argumentation tasks, in: Proceedings of the Fifth National/First European Conference on Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence, University of Exeter, Exeter: E.U.C.L.I.D., pp. 117-130.
Perelman, Ch. 1969. Olbrechts-Tyteca L., The New Rhetoric: a Treatise on Argumentation, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Translation of Traité de l’argumentation; la nouvelle rhétorique.)
Prakken, H. 1993. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, Phd. thesis Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam: Free University of Amsterdam.
Royakkers, L. 1996. Representing Legal Rules in Deontic Logic, Phd. thesis Tilburg University, Tilburg: Tilburg University.
Salton, G. 1989. Automatic Text Processing, Reading (Mass): Addison-Wesley. Toulmin, S. E. 1958. The Uses of Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. E. 1992. Logic, rhetoric & reason: Redressing the balance, in: F. H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Argumentation Illuminated, Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation (SICSAT), pp. 3-11.
Voermans, W. & Verharen, E. 1993. LEDA: A semi-intelligent legislative drafting-support system, in: J. S. Svensson, J. G. J. Wassink and B. Van Buggenhout (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems, Proceedings 6th International Conference JURIX’ 93, Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande, pp. 81-94.
Voermans, W. 1995. Modelling the draughtman’s craft: the LEDA-project legimatics and legimatica-projects in the Netherlands, in: C. Biagoli, P. Mercatali, and G. Sartor (eds.), Legimatica: informatica per legiferare, Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, pp. 109-133.
Zeleznikow, J. & Stranieri, A. 1995. The split-up system: Integrating neural networks and rule-based reasoning in the legal domain, in: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, College Park (MD), New York (NY): ACM, pp. 185-194.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Matthijssen, L. A Task-Based Interface to Legal Databases. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6, 81–103 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008291611892
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008291611892