Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 281–299

Commonsense Causal Explanation in a Legal Domain

Open Access
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we present an approach to commonsense causal explanation of stories that can be used for automatically determining the liable party in legal case descriptions. The approach is based on \({\mathsf {LRICore}}\), a core ontology for law that takes a commonsense perspective. Aside from our thesis that in the legal domain many terms still have a strong commonsense flavour, the descriptions of events in legal cases, as e.g. presented at judicial trials, are cast in commonsense terms as well. We present design principles for representing commonsense causation, and describe a process-based approach to automatic identification of causal relations in stories, which are described in terms of the core ontology. The resulting causal explanation forms a necessary condition for determining the liability and responsibility of agents that play a role in the case. We describe the basic architecture and working of \({\mathsf {DIRECT}}\), the demonstrator we are constructing to test the validity of our process oriented view on commonsense causation. This view holds that causal relations are in fact abstractions constructed on the basis of our commonsense understanding of physical and mental processes.

Keywords

causation commonsense legal reasoning liability ontology 

References

  1. Ashley, K. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case Based Argumentation Through an Example and Models. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Bredeweg B., Struss P. (2004). Current topics in qualitative reasoning. AI Magazine 24:13–16, special issue on Qualitative Reasoning.Google Scholar
  4. Breuker, J. and Hoekstra, R. (2004a). Core Concepts of Law: Taking Common-sense Seriously. In: Proceedings of Formal Ontologies in Information Systems, FOIS-2004. IOS-Press.Google Scholar
  5. Breuker, J. and Hoekstra, R. (2004b). DIRECT: Ontology based Discovery of Responsibility and Causality in Legal Case Descriptions. In: Gordon, T. (ed.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2004: The Seventeenth Annual Conference. Amsterdam, 59–68, IOS Press.Google Scholar
  6. Breuker, J. and Hoekstra, R. (2004c). Epistemology and Ontology in Core Ontologies: FOLaw and LRI-Core, Two Core Ontologies for Law. In: Proceedings of EKAW Workshop on Core ontologies. http://sunsite.informatik.rwthaachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/, CEURGoogle Scholar
  7. Breuker, J., Valente, A., and Winkels, R. (2006). Use and Reuse of Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Information Management. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12:241–277.Google Scholar
  8. Clark H. (1996) Using Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson D. (2001) Essays on Actions and Events, 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. Forbus K. D. (1984) Qualitative Process Theory. Artificial Intelligence 24:85–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., and Schneider, L. (2002). Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE. In Gomez-Perez, A. and Benjamins, V. (eds.), Proceedings of the EKAW-2002, 166–181. Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Georgeff M., Pell B., Pollack M., Tambe M., Wooldridge M. (1999) The Belief-Desire-Intention Model of Agency. In: Müller J., Singh M.P., Rao A.S. (eds) Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents V: Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-98), Vol. 1555. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, pp 1–10.Google Scholar
  13. Hart H., Honor’e T. (1985) Causation in the Law, 2nd edition. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hayes, P. J. (1985). The Second Naive Physics Manifesto. In Hobbs J.R., Moore R.C. (eds) Formal Theories of the Common Sense World, 1–36. Norwood, Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  15. Hobbs, J. R. and Moore, R. C. (eds.) (1985). Formal Theories of the Common Sense World. Ablex Publishing Company: Norwood.Google Scholar
  16. Hoekstra R., Breuker J. (2005) Processes as Causal Glue in a Framework for Ontology-Based Responsibility Attribution. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques, in conjunction with ICAIL 2005. Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
  17. Horn, W. (ed.) (1990) Causal AI Models: Steps Toward Applications. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  18. Kim J. (1998) Mind in a Physical World: An Essay on the Mind-Body Problem and Mental Causation, Representation and Mind. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lehmann, J. (2003). Causation in Artificial Intelligence and Law: A Modelling Approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Lehmann J., Borgo S., Masolo C., Gangemi A. (2004) Causality and Causation in DOLCE. In: Varzi A. C., Vieu L. (eds) Formal Ontology in Information Systems Proceedings of the International Conference FOIS 2004. Torino, IOS Press, pp 273–284.Google Scholar
  21. Lehmann J., Breuker J., Brouwer B. (2005) CausatiONT: Modeling Causation in AI& Law. In: Benjamins V., Casanovas P., Breuker J., Gangemi A. (eds) Law and the Semantic Web, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (3369). Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, pp 77–96.Google Scholar
  22. Lehmann, J. and Gangemi, A. (2006). An Ontology of Physical Causation as a Basis for Assessing Causation in Fact and Attributing Legal Responsibility. Artificial Inteligence and Law. Special Issue on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques.Google Scholar
  23. Pearl J. (2000) Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Schaffer, J. (2003). The Metaphysics of Causation/Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  25. Sowa J. F. (2000) Knowledge Representation: Logical Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  26. Valente A. (1995) Legal Knowledge Engineering: A Modelling Approach. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Valente, A. and Breuker, J. (1996) Towards Principled Core Ontologies. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop. Banff, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
  28. van Heijst G., Schreiber A. T., Wielinga B. (1997) Using Explicit Ontologies for KBS Development. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 46(2/3):183–292.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz Center for LawUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations