Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 215–319 | Cite as

A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law

  • Trevor Bench-Capon
  • Michał Araszkiewicz
  • Kevin Ashley
  • Katie Atkinson
  • Floris Bex
  • Filipe Borges
  • Daniele Bourcier
  • Paul Bourgine
  • Jack G. Conrad
  • Enrico Francesconi
  • Thomas F. Gordon
  • Guido Governatori
  • Jochen L. Leidner
  • David D. Lewis
  • Ronald P. Loui
  • L. Thorne McCarty
  • Henry Prakken
  • Frank Schilder
  • Erich Schweighofer
  • Paul Thompson
  • Alex Tyrrell
  • Bart Verheij
  • Douglas N. Walton
  • Adam Z. Wyner
Article

Abstract

We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into a history of the last quarter century of the field, and provide some insights into where it has come from, where it is now, and where it might go.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence and law Legal informatics Models of legal reasoning 

References

  1. Ågotnes T, van der Hoek W, Tennenholtz M, Wooldridge M (2009) Power in normative systems. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2009, pp 145–152Google Scholar
  2. Adelman L, Gualtieri J, Riedl SL (1994) A multifaceted approach to evaluating expert systems. Artif Intell Des Anal Manufact 8(4):289–306Google Scholar
  3. Aleven V (1997) Teaching case-based argumentation through an example and models. PhD Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Aleven V, Ashley KD (1997) Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 170–179Google Scholar
  5. Alexy R (1978) Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als eine Theorie der juristischen Begründung. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  6. Alexy R (1985) Theorie der Grundrechte. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  7. Al-Kofahi K, Grom B, Jackson P (1999) Anaphora resolution in the extraction of treatment history language from court opinions by partial parsing. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 138–146Google Scholar
  8. Al-Kofahi K, Tyrrell A, Vachher A, Jackson P (2001) A machine learning approach to prior case retrieval. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 88–93Google Scholar
  9. Allen LE, Saxon CS (1995) Better language, better thought, better communication: the A-Hohfeld language for legal analysis. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 219–228Google Scholar
  10. Allen LE, Saxon CS (1997) Achieving fluency in modernized and formalized hohfeld: puzzles and games for the LEGAL RELATIONS Language. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 19–28Google Scholar
  11. Amaya A (2000) Formal models of coherence and legal epistemology. Artif Intell Law 15(4):429–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Anderson TJ, Schum DA, Twining WL (2005) Analysis of evidence, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Antoniou G (2004) Defeasible logic with dynamic priorities. Int J Intell Syst 19(5):463–472zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Araszkiewicz M (2010) Balancing of legal principles and constraint satisfaction. In: Winkels R (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2010. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 7–16Google Scholar
  15. Ashley KD (1989) Toward a computational theory of arguing with precedents. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 93–102Google Scholar
  16. Ashley KD (1990) Modeling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Ashley KD (2009) Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological, and hypothetical legal reasoning In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  18. Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2003) A predictive role for intermediate legal concepts. In: Bourcier D (ed) Proceedings of Jurix 2003. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 153–162Google Scholar
  19. Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2009) Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artif Intell Law 17(2):125–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM (2005) Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning. Artif Intell Law 13(1):93–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM (2007a) Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artif Intell 171(10–15):855–874MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM (2007b) Argumentation and standards of proof. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 107–116Google Scholar
  23. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2006) Computational representation of persuasive argument. Synthese 152:157–206MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, Cartwright D, Wyner AZ (2011) Semantic models for policy deliberation. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 81–90Google Scholar
  25. Baron JR, Thompson P (2007) The search problem posed by large heterogeneous data sets in litigation: possible future approaches to research. In: proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 141–147Google Scholar
  26. Belew RK (1987) A connectionist approach to conceptual information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 116–126Google Scholar
  27. Bench-Capon TJM (1989) Deep models, normative reasoning and legal expert systems. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 37–45Google Scholar
  28. Bench-Capon TJM (1993) Neural networks and open texture. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 292–297Google Scholar
  29. Bench-Capon TJM (1998) Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In: Hage J et al (eds) Legal knowledge-based systems. Jurix 1998. Gerard Noodt Instituut, Nijmegen, pp 5–19Google Scholar
  30. Bench-Capon TJM (2002) The missing link revisited: the role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Bench-Capon TJM (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J Logic Comput 13(3):429–448MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Bench-Capon TJM (2012) Relating values in a series of supreme court decisions. In: Atkinson K (ed) Legal knowledge-based systems. Jurix 2011. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 13–22Google Scholar
  33. Bench-Capon TJM, Coenen FP (1992) Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artif Intell Law 1(1):65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2000) Using values and theories to resolve disagreement in law. In: Breuker J, Leenes R, Winkels R (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2000. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 73–84Google Scholar
  35. Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2001) A quantitative approach to theory coherence. In: Lodder A, Loui R, Muntjewerff A (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2001. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 53–62Google Scholar
  36. Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1–2):97–143zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Bench-Capon TJM, Gordon F (2009) Isomorphism and argumentation. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 11–20Google Scholar
  38. Bench-Capon TJM, Prakken H (2006) Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) Computational models of argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2006. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 247–258Google Scholar
  39. Bench-Capon TJM, Rissland EL (2001) Back to the future: dimensions revisited. In: Lodder A, Loui R, Muntjewerff A (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2001. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 41–52Google Scholar
  40. Bench-Capon TJM, Staniford G (1995) PLAID—proactive legal assistance. Proceedings of the fifth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 81–88Google Scholar
  41. Bench-Capon TJM, Visser PRS (1997) Ontologies in legal information systems; the need for explicit specifications of domain conceptualizations. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 132–141Google Scholar
  42. Bench-Capon TJM, Robinson GO, Routen TW, Sergot MJ (1987) Logic programming for large scale applications in law: a formalisation of supplementary benefit legislation. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 190–198Google Scholar
  43. Bench-Capon TJM, Dunne PE, Leng PH (1992) A dialogue game for dialectical interaction with expert systems. In: Rault JC (ed) Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference on expert systems and their applications, vol 1. Nanterre, pp 105–113Google Scholar
  44. Bench-Capon TJM, Prakken H, Visser W (2011) Argument schemes for two-phase democratic deliberation. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  45. Berman DH, Hafner CD (1988) Obstacles to the development of logic-based models of legal reasoning. In: Walter C (ed) Computer power and legal language: the use of computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, and expert systems in the law. Quorum Books, Westport CT, pp 183–214Google Scholar
  46. Berman DH, Hafner CD (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, Amsterdam. ACM Press, New York, pp 50–59Google Scholar
  47. Bex FJ (2011) Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: a formal hybrid theory. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Bex FJ, Prakken H (2004) Reinterpreting arguments in dialogue: an application to evidential reasoning. In: Gordon TF (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2004. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 119–129Google Scholar
  49. Bex FJ, Prakken H (2010) Investigating stories in a formal dialogue game. In: Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A (eds) Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2008. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 73–84Google Scholar
  50. Bex FJ, Verheij B (2011) Legal shifts in the process of proof. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 11–20Google Scholar
  51. Bex FJ, Prakken H, Reed C, Walton DN (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artif Intell Law 11(2–3):125–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Bex FJ, Prakken H, Verheij B (2007) Formalising argumentative story-based analysis of evidence. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  53. Bex FJ, van den Braak SW, van Oostendorp H, Prakken H, Verheij B, Vreeswijk GAW (2007) Sense-making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments? Law Prob Risk 6(1–4):145–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Bex FJ, van Koppen PJ, Prakken H, Verheij B (2010) A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence. Artif Intell Law 18(2):123–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Bex FJ, Bench-Capon TJM, Verheij B (2011) What makes a story plausible? The need for precedents. In: Atkinson K (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2011: the twenty fourth annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 23–32Google Scholar
  56. Bing J (ed) (1984) Handbook of legal information retrieval. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  57. Bing J (1987) Designing text retrieval systems for conceptual searching. In: ICAIL ’87: proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 43–51Google Scholar
  58. Bing J (1987) Performance of legal text retrieval systems: the curse of Boole. Law Library J 79:187–202Google Scholar
  59. Bing J, Harwold T (1977) Legal decisions and information systems. Universitetsforlaget, OsloGoogle Scholar
  60. Blair DC, Maron ME (1985) An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system. Commun ACM 28(3):289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Boehm BW, Brown JR, Kaspar H, Lipow M, McLeod G, Merritt M (1978) Characteristics of software quality. TRW Software Series, New HollandGoogle Scholar
  62. Boer A, van Engers TM (2011) An agent-based legal knowledge acquisition methodology for agile public administration. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 171–180Google Scholar
  63. Boer A, van Engers TM, Winkels R (2003) Using ontologies for comparing and harmonizing legislation. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Pres, New York, pp 161–172Google Scholar
  64. Brüninghaus S, Ashley KD (2003) Predicting outcomes of case-based legal arguments. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, NewYork, pp 233–242Google Scholar
  65. Branting LK (1991a) Reasoning with portions of precedents. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 145–154Google Scholar
  66. Branting LK (1991b) Building explanations from rules and structured cases. Int J Man Mach Stud 34(6):797–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Branting LK (1993a) A reduction-graph model of ratio decidendi. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 40–49Google Scholar
  68. Branting LK (1993b) A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artif Intell Law 2(1):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Branting LK (2003) A reduction-graph model of precedent in legal analysis. Artif Intell 150(1–2):59–95zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Breuker J, den Haan N (1991) Separating world and regulation knowledge: where is the logic In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 92–97Google Scholar
  71. Breuker J, Hoekstra R (2004) Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRICore, two core ontologies for law. In: Proceedings of EKAW workshop on core ontologies. CEURGoogle Scholar
  72. Bylander T, Chandrasekaran B (1987) Generic tasks for knowledge-based reasoning: the “right” level of abstraction for knowledge acquisition. Int J Man Mach Stud 26(2):231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Cartwright D, Atkinson K (2009) Using computational argumentation to support e-participation. IEEE Intell Syst 24(5):42–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Casner AJ, Barton LW (1964) Cases and text on property. Little Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  75. Chandrasekaran B (1986) Generic tasks in knowledge-based reasoning: high-level building blocks for expert system design. IEEE Exp 1(3):23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Chisholm R (1963) Contrary-to-duty imperative and deontic logic. Analysis 24(2):33–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Chorley A, Bench-Capon TJM (2005) AGATHA: using heuristic search to automate the construction of case law theories. Artif Intell Law 13(1):9–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Clancey W (1981) The epistemology of a rule-based expert system: a framework for explanation. Technical Report STAN-CS-81-896, Stanford University, Department of Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  79. Cross R (1979) Precedent in English Law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  80. Conrad JG, Dabney DP (2001) A cognitive approach to judicial opinion structure: applying domain expertise to component analysis. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  81. Conrad JG, Schilder F (2007) Opinion mining in legal blogs. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 231–236Google Scholar
  82. Conrad JG, Leidner JL, Schilder F, Kondadadi R (2009) Query-based opinion summarization for legal blog entries. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 167–176Google Scholar
  83. Dayal S, Johnson P (2000) A web-based revolution in Australian public administration. In: Proceedings of law via the internet (reprinted in J Inform Law Technol 1)Google Scholar
  84. de Waard A, Kircz J (2008) Modeling scientific research articles—shifting perspectives and persistent issues. In: Proceedings of ELPUB 2008 international conference on electronic publishing. Toronto, Canada. ELPUB Digital Library, pp 234–245Google Scholar
  85. Duda R, Gasching J, Hart P (1979) Model design in the PROSPECTOR consultant system for mineral exploration. In: Michie D (ed) Expert systems in the micro-electronic age. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 153–167Google Scholar
  86. Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–357MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Farley AM, Freeman K (1995) Burden of proof in legal argumentation. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 156–164Google Scholar
  88. Farzindar A, Guy L (2004) LetSum, an automatic legal text summarizing system. In: Lodder A, Loui R, Muntjewerff A (eds) Proceedings of the seventeenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems, Jurix 2004. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 11–18Google Scholar
  89. Finkelstein MO, Levin B (2003) On the probative value of evidence from a screening search. Jurimetrics 43:265–90Google Scholar
  90. Francesconi E, Peruginelli G (2008) Integrated access to legal literature through automated semantic classification. Artif Intell Law 17(1):31–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Freeman JB (1991) Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: a theory of argument structure. Foris Publications, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Freeman K (1993) Towards formalizing dialectical argumentation. Phd thesis, University of OregonGoogle Scholar
  93. Freeman K, Farley AM (1996) A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):163–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Galgani F, Hoffman A (2010) LEXA: towards automatic legal citation classification. In: Proceedings of the twenty-third australian joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 445–454Google Scholar
  95. Garey MR, Johnson DS (1979) Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  96. Goodhart A (1930) Determining the ratio decidendi of a case. Yale Law J 40(2):161–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Gordon TF (1987) Oblog-2: a hybrid knowledge representation system for defeasible reasoning. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 231–239Google Scholar
  98. Gordon TF (1993) The pleadings game; an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Ph.d., Technical University of DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  99. Gordon TF (1993) The pleadings game: formalizing procedural justice. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 10–19Google Scholar
  100. Gordon TF (1995) The pleadings game. an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  101. Gordon TF, Karacapilidis N (1997) The Zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 10–18Google Scholar
  102. Gordon TF, Walton DN (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (ed) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton DN (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–15):875–896MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Governatori G (1996) Labelling ideality and subideality. In: Gabbay DM, Ohlbach HJ (eds) Practical reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp 291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Governatori G (2005) Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int J Cooper Inform Syst 14(2–3):181–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Governatori G, Olivieri F, Scannapieco S, Cristani M (2010) Superiority based revision of defeasible theories. In: Dean M, Hall J, Rotolo A, Tabet S (eds) RuleML. Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, pp 104–118Google Scholar
  107. Grabmair M, Ashley KD (2011) Facilitating case comparison using value judgments and intermediate legal concepts. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 50–59Google Scholar
  108. Greenwood K, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2003) Towards a computational account of persuasion in law. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 22–31Google Scholar
  109. Gruber TR (1995) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int J Human Comput Stud 43(5–6):907–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Hachey B, Grover C (2005) Automatic legal text summarisation: experiments with summary structuring. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 75–84Google Scholar
  111. Hafner CD (1987) Conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 35–42Google Scholar
  112. Hafner CD, Berman DH (2002) The role of context in case-based legal reasoning: teleological, temporal, and procedural. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):19–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Hage J (1993) Monological reason-based logic: a low-level integration of rule-based reasoning and case-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 30–39Google Scholar
  114. Hage J (1995) Teleological reasoning in reason-based logic. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 11–32Google Scholar
  115. Hage J (1997) Reasoning with rules. An essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  116. Hage J (2000) Goal-based theory evaluation. In: Breuker J, Leenes R, Winkels R (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2000. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 59–72Google Scholar
  117. Hage J (2001) Formalizing legal coherence. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 22–31Google Scholar
  118. Hage J (2005) Studies in legal Logic. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  119. Hage J, Peczenik A (2000) Law, morals, and defeasibility. Ratio Juris 13(3):305–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Hage J, Peczenik A (2001) Legal internalism. In: Chiassoni P (ed) The legal ought. Proceedings of the IVR mid-term congress. Genoa, pp 141–170Google Scholar
  121. Hage J, Verheij B (1994) Reason-based logic: a logic for reasoning with rules and reasons. Inform Commun Technol Law 3(2–3):171–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Hage J, Span G, Lodder AR (1992) A dialogical model of legal reasoning. In: Grutters C et al (eds) Legal knowledge-based systems: Jurix 92. Koninklijjke Vermade, Lelystad, pp 135–145Google Scholar
  123. Hage J, Leenes RE, Lodder AR (1993) Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artif Intell Law 2(2):113–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Hall J, Zeleznikow J (2001) Acknowledging insufficiency in the evaluation of legal knowledge-based systems: strategies towards a broad based evaluation model. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 147–50Google Scholar
  125. Hammond P (1983) Representation of DHSS regulations as a logic program. Department of Computing: Research report DoC, Imperial CollegeGoogle Scholar
  126. Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  127. Hepler AR, Dawid AP, Leucari V (2007) Object-oriented graphical representations of complex patterns of evidence. Law Prob Risk 6(1–4):275–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Herrestad H (1991) Norms and formalization. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 175–184Google Scholar
  129. Holyoak KJ, Thagard P (1989) Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cogn Sci 13(3):295–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Horty JF (2011) Reasons and precedent. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 41–50Google Scholar
  131. Hume D (1739) A treatise on human nature. Available as: A Treatise of human nature, edited by Selby-Bigge LA, 2nd edn. (revised by Nidditch PH, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975)Google Scholar
  132. Hunter D (1999) Out of their minds: legal theory in neural networks. Artif Intell Law 7(2–3):129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Jackson P, Al-Kofahi K (2011) Human expertise and artificial intelligence in legal search. In: Geist A, Brunschwig CR, Lachmeyer F, Schefbeck G (eds) Strukturierung der Juristischen Semantik—Structuring Legal Semantics. Editions Weblaw, Bern, pp 417–427Google Scholar
  134. Jackson P, Al-Kofahi K, Tyrrell A, Vachher A (2003) Information extraction from case law and retrieval of prior cases. Artif Intell 150(1–2):239–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Jakobovits H, Vermeir D (1999) Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 53–62Google Scholar
  136. Johnson P, Mead D (1991) Legislative knowledge base systems for public administration: some practical issues. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, New York, pp 108–117Google Scholar
  137. Jones AJI, Pörn I (1985) Ideality, sub-ideality and deontic logic. Synthese 65(2):275–290MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Jones AJI, Pörn I (1986) “Ought” and “Must”. Synthese 66(1):89–93MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Juzgado NJ, Moran JL (1998) Common framework for the evaluation process of KBS and conventional software. Knowl Based Syst 1(2):145–159Google Scholar
  140. Kadane JB, Schum DA (1996) A probabilistic analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti evidence. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  141. Karacapilidis NI, Papadias D (2001) Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Inform Syst 26(4):259–277zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Karousos N, Papaloukas S, Kostaras N, Xenos MN, Tzagarakis M, Karacapilidis NI (2010) Usability evaluation of web-based collaboration support systems: the case of CoPe_it! In: Proceedings of the third world summit on the knowledge society, volume 111 of communications in computer and information science. Springer, Berlin, pp 248–258Google Scholar
  143. Karpf J (1989) Quality assurance of legal expert systems. In: Pre-proceedings of the third international conference on Logica, Informatica, Diritto, CNR, Florence, pp 411–440Google Scholar
  144. Keppens J (2011) On extracting arguments from Bayesian network representations of evidential reasoning. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 141–150Google Scholar
  145. Keppens J, Schafer B (2006) Knowledge based crime scenario modelling. Exp Syst Appl 30(2):203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Keppens J, Shen Q, Price C (2011) Compositional Bayesian modelling for computation of evidence collection strategies. Appl Intell 35(1):134–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Kirschner PA, Buckingham S, Simon J, Carr CS (eds) (2003) Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  148. Kogan S, Levin D, Routledge BR, Sagi JS, Smith NA (2009) Predicting risk from financial reports with regression. In: Proceedings of the human language technologies: the annual conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics, association for computational linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, pp 272–280Google Scholar
  149. Kowalski RA, Toni F (1996) Abstract argumentation. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):275–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Lauritsen M (2005) Intelligent tools for managing factual arguments. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, New York, pp 95–104Google Scholar
  151. Leenes RE (2001) Burden of proof in dialogue games and Dutch civil procedure. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 109–118Google Scholar
  152. Leidner JL, Schilder F (2010) Hunting for the black swan: risk mining from text. In: Proceedings of the association for computational linguistics (ACL), association for computational linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, pp 54–59Google Scholar
  153. Leith P (1982) ELI: an expert legislative consultant. In: Proceedings of the IEE conference on man/machine systems UMIST Conference Publication 212Google Scholar
  154. Levi EH (1949) An introduction to legal reasoning. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  155. Lindahl L, Odelstad J (2008) Intermediaries and intervenients in normative systems. J Appl Logic 6(2):229–250MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Lloyd JW (1987) Foundations of logic programming, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Lodder AR (1999) DiaLaw. On legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation. Law and philosophy library. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  158. Lodder AR, Herczog A (1995) DiaLaw a dialogical framework for modeling legal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 146–155Google Scholar
  159. Lorenzen P, Lorenz K (1978) Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, DarmstadtzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  160. Loui RP (1998) Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Comput Intell 14(1):1–38MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Loui RP, Norman J (1995) Rationales and argument moves. Artif Intell Law 3(3):159–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Loui RP, Norman J, Olson J, Merrill A (1993) A design for reasoning with policies, precedents and rationales. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 202–211Google Scholar
  163. Loui RP, Norman J, Altepeter J, Pinkard D, Craven D, Linsday J, Foltz MA (1997) Progress on room 5: a testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 207–214Google Scholar
  164. Luehrs R, Malsch T, Voss K (2001) Internet, discourses and democracy. In: New frontiers in artificial intelligence, LNCS 2253. Springer, Berlin, pp 67–74Google Scholar
  165. Macintosh A, Gordon TF, Renton A (2009) Providing argument support for e-participation. J Inform Technol Politics 6(1):43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Mackaay E, Robillard P (1974) Predicting judicial decisions: the nearest neighbour rule and visual representation of case patterns. Datenverarbeitung im Recht 3(3–4):302–331Google Scholar
  167. Mackenzie JD (1979) Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. J Philos Logic 8(1):117–133MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Manning CD, Raghavan P, Schtze H (eds) (2008) Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  169. McCarty LT (1983) Permissions and obligations. In: Proceedings of the eighth international joint conference on artificial intelligence. William Kaufmann, MA, pp 287–294Google Scholar
  170. McCarty LT (1984) Intelligent legal information systems: problems and prospects. In: Campbell C (ed) Data processing and the law. Sweet and Maxwell, London, pp 125–151Google Scholar
  171. McCarty LT (1989) A language for legal discourse I: basic features. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 180–189Google Scholar
  172. McCarty LT (1991) Invited address: on the role of prototypes in appellate legal argument. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 185–190Google Scholar
  173. McCarty LT (1995) An implementation of Eisner v. Macomber. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 276–286Google Scholar
  174. McCarty LT, Sridharan NS (1981) The Representation of an Evolving System of Legal Concepts: II. Prototypes and Deformations. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, William Kaufmann, MA, pp. 246–253Google Scholar
  175. Mochales R, Moens M-F (2009) Argumentation mining: the detection, classification and structure of arguments in text. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp. 98–107Google Scholar
  176. Mochales R, Moens M-F (2011) Argumentation mining. Artif Intell Law 19(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Modgil S, Bench-Capon TJM (2011) Metalevel argumentation. J Logic Comput 21(6):959–1003Google Scholar
  178. Modgil S, Prakken H (2011) Revisiting preferences and argumentation. In: Proceedings of the twenty-second international joint conference on artificial intelligence. IJCAI/AAAI, pp 1021–1026Google Scholar
  179. Moens M-F, Uyttendaele C, Dumortier J (1997) Abstracting of legal cases: the SALOMON experience. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 114–122Google Scholar
  180. Moulin B, Irandoust H, Bélanger M, Desbordes G (2002) Explanation and argumentation capabilities: towards the creation of more persuasive agents. Artif Intell Rev 17(3):169–222zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Nilsson NJ (1982) Principles of artificial intelligence. Springer, OxfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  182. O’Keefe RM, O’Leary DE (1993) Expert system verification and validation: a survey and tutorial. Artif Intell Rev 7(1):3–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Palmirani M, Governatori G, Contissa G (2011) Modelling temporal legal rules. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 131–135Google Scholar
  184. Pang B, Lee L (2008) Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found Trends Inform Retr 2(1–2):1–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Paulk MC, Weber CV, Curtis B, Chrissis MB (1995) Capability maturity model for software. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  186. Peczenik A (2008) On law and reason, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  187. Peczenik A, Hage J (2000) Legal knowledge about what? Ratio Juris 13(3):325–345Google Scholar
  188. Pennington N, Hastie R (1993) The story model for juror decision making. In: Hastie R (ed) Inside the Juror: the psychology of juror decision making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 192–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  190. Philipps L (1999) Artificial morality and artificial law. Artif Intell Law 7(2):115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Philipps L, Sartor G (1999) Introduction: from legal theories to neural networks and fuzzy reasoning. Artif Intell Law 7(2–3):51–63Google Scholar
  192. Pierce CS (1931) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  193. Pollock J (1987) Defeasible reasoning. Cogn Sci 11(4):481–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Prakken H (1993) A logical framework for modelling legal argument. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 192–201Google Scholar
  195. Prakken H (1995) From logic to dialectics in legal argument. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 165–74Google Scholar
  196. Prakken H (2000) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. In: Beuker J, Leenes R, Winkels R (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2000. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 49–57Google Scholar
  197. Prakken H (2001) Modelling defeasibility in law: logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae 48(2–3):253–271MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  198. Prakken H (2001) Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, 119–128Google Scholar
  199. Prakken H (2002) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):111–133Google Scholar
  200. Prakken H (2005) A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 85–94Google Scholar
  201. Prakken H (2005) Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J Logic Comput 15(6):1009–1040MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. Prakken H (2008) A formal model of adjudication dialogues. Artif Intell Law 16(3):305–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Prakken H (2010) An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Arg Comput 1(2):93–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting argument in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):331–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. Prakken H, Sartor G (1997) Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J Appl Non Class Logics 7(1):25–75MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. Prakken H, Sartor G (1997) Reasoning with precedents in a dialogue game. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  207. Prakken H, Sartor G (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif Intell Law 6(2–4):231–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. Prakken H, Sartor G (2006) Presumptions and burdens of proof. In: van Engers TM (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems: JURIX 2006: the nineteenth annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  209. Prakken H, Sartor G (2007) Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 176–185Google Scholar
  210. Prakken H, Sartor G (2008) More on presumptions and burdens of proof. In: Francesconi E, Sartor G, Tiscorina D (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2008: the twenty-first annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  211. Prakken H, Sartor G (2009) A logical analysis of burdens of proof. Legal evidence and burden of proof. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, Verheij B (eds) Legal evidence and burden of proof: statistics, stories, logic. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 223–253Google Scholar
  212. Prakken H, Sartor G (2011) On modelling burdens and standards of proof in structured argumentation. In: Atkinson K (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems (Jurix 2011). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 83–92Google Scholar
  213. Prakken H, Reed C, Walton DN (2004) Argumentation schemes and burden of proof. In: Proceedings of the fourth workshop on computational models of natural argument. ECAI, Valencia, pp 81–86Google Scholar
  214. Prakken H, Reed C, Walton DN (2005) Dialogues about the burden of proof. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 15–124Google Scholar
  215. Price SL, Nielsen ML, Delcambre LML, Vedsted P, Steinhauer J (2009) Using semantic components to search for domain-specfic documents: an evaluation from the system perspective. Inform Syst 34(8):724–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. Reed C, Rowe G (2004) Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int J AI Tools 13(4):961–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. Reiter R (1980) A logic for default reasoning. Artif Intell 13(1–2):81–132MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  218. Rescher N (1977) Dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  219. Rich E, Knight K (1991) Artificial intelligence, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  220. Rissland EL (1983) Examples in legal reasoning: legal hypotheticals. In: Proceedings of the eighth international joint conference on artificial intelligence. William Kaufman, MA, pp 90–93Google Scholar
  221. Rissland EL (2009) Black swans, gray cygnets and other rare birds. In: Case-based reasoning research and development, eighth international conference on case-based reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp 6–13Google Scholar
  222. Rissland EL, Ashley KD (1987) A case-based system for trade secrets law. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 60–66Google Scholar
  223. Rissland EL, Ashley KD (2002) A note on dimensions and factors. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  224. Rissland EL, Collins RT (1986) The law as learning system. In: Proceedings eighth annual cognitive science society conference. Amherst, MA, pp 500–513Google Scholar
  225. Rissland EL, Daniels JJ (1995) A hybrid CBR-IR approach to legal information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 52–61Google Scholar
  226. Rissland EL, Friedman MT(1995) Detecting change in legal concepts. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 127–136Google Scholar
  227. Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1989) Interpreting statutory predicates. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 46–53Google Scholar
  228. Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1989) Combining case-based and rule-based reasoning: a heuristic approach. In: Proceedings of eleventh international joint conference on artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, CA, pp 524–530Google Scholar
  229. Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1991) CABARET: statutory interpretation on a hybrid architecture. Int J Man Mach Stud 34(6):39–887Google Scholar
  230. Rissland EL, Skalak DB, Friedman MT (1993) BankXX: a program to generate argument through case-base search. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 117–124Google Scholar
  231. Rissland EL, Skalak DB, Friedman MT (1996) BankXX: supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval. Artif Intell Law 4(1):1–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  232. Rissland EL, Skalak DB, Friedman MT (1997) Evaluating a legal argument program: the BankXX experiments. Artif Intell Law 5(1–2):1–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  233. Rissland EL, Ashley KD, Branting LK (2005) Case-based reasoning and law. Knowl Eng Rev 20(3):293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  234. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  235. Roth B, Verheij B (2004) Dialectical arguments and case comparison. In: Gordon T (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2004: the seventeenth annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 99–108Google Scholar
  236. Saint-Dizier P (2012) Processing natural language arguments with the TextCoop platform. J Arg Comput 3(1):49–82Google Scholar
  237. Salton GM, Wong AKC, Yang C-S (1975) A vector space model for automatic indexing. Commun ACM 18(11):613–620zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  238. Sartor G (1993) A simple computational model for nonmonotonic and adversarial legal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  239. Sartor G (2002) Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  240. Sartor G (2006) Fundamental legal concepts: a formal and teleological characterisation. Artif Intell Law 14(1–2):101–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  241. Sartor G (2010) Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality. Artif Intell Law 18(2):175–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  242. Schank RC, Abelson RP (1997) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  243. Scheuer O, Loll F, Pinkwart N, McLaren BM (2010) Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Int J Comput Supp Collab Learn 5(1):43–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  244. Schlobohm DA, McCarty LT (1989) EPS II: estate planning with prototypes. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  245. Schweighofer E (1999) Legal knowledge representation, automatic text analysis in public international and European law. Kluwer, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  246. Schweighofer E (2006) Computing law: from legal information systems to dynamic legal electronic commentaries. In: Sjberg CM, Wahlgren P (eds) Festskrift till Peter Seipel. Norsteds Juridik AB, Stockholm, pp 569–588Google Scholar
  247. Schweighofer E, Winiwarter W (1993) Legal expert system KONTERM—automatic representation of document structure and contents. In: Database and expert systems applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 486–497Google Scholar
  248. Schweighofer E, Rauber A, Dittenbach M (2001) Automatic text representation, classification and labeling in European law. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 78–87Google Scholar
  249. Sergot MJ (1982) Prospects for representing the law as logic programs. In: Clark KL, Tarnlund SA (eds) Logic programming. Academic Press, London, pp 33–42Google Scholar
  250. Sergot MJ, Sadri F, Kowalski RA, Kriwaczek F, Hammond P, Cory HT (1986) The British nationality act as a logic program. Commun ACM 29(5):370–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  251. Shortliffe EH (1976) Computer-based medical consultations, MYCIN. Artificial intelligence series. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  252. Skalak DB, Rissland EL (1991) Argument moves in a rule-guided domain. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  253. Skalak DB, Rissland EL (1992) Arguments and cases: an inevitable intertwining. Artif Intell Law 1(1):3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  254. Smith JC (1997) The use of lexicons in information retrieval in legal databases. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 78–87Google Scholar
  255. Stamper R (1980) LEGOL: modelling legal rules by computer. In: Niblett B (ed) Computer science and law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 45–71Google Scholar
  256. Surdeanu M, Nallapati R, Gregory G, Walker J, Manning CD (2011) Risk analysis for intellectual property litigation. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 231–236Google Scholar
  257. Susskind R (1987) Expert systems in law: out of the research laboratory and into the marketplace. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  258. Teufel S (1999) Argumentative Zoning: information extraction from scientific text. PhD thesis, University of EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  259. Teufel S, Moens M (2002) Summarizing scientific articles—experiments with relevance and rhetorical status. Comput Linguist 28(4):409–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  260. Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  261. Tyree A (1989) Expert systems in law. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  262. Valente A, Breuker J (1995) ON-LINE: an architecture for modelling legal information. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 307–315Google Scholar
  263. Van den Braak SW (2010) Sensemaking software for crime analysis. Doctoral dissertation Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht UniversityGoogle Scholar
  264. Van de Ven S, Breuker J, Hoekstra R, Wortel L (2008) Automated legal assessment in OWL 2. In: Francesconi E, Sartor G, Tiscorina D (eds) Proceedings of Jurix 2008. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 170–175Google Scholar
  265. Van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectic approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  266. Van Gelder T (2003) Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument visualization. In: Kirschner PA, Shum SJB, Carr CS (eds) Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–115Google Scholar
  267. Van Heijst G (1995) The role of ontologies in knowledge engineering. Ph.D. thesis, Social Science Informatics, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  268. Verheij B (2005) Virtual arguments: on the design of argument assistants for lawyers and other arguers. T.M.C. Asser Press, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  269. Verheij B, Bex FJ (2009) Accepting the truth of a story about the facts of a criminal case. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, Verheij B (eds) Legal evidence and proof: statistics, stories, logic. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 161–193Google Scholar
  270. Vreeswijk G, Prakken H (2000) Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Proceedings of JELIA 2000. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–253Google Scholar
  271. Wagenaar WA, Van Koppen PJ, Crombag HFM (1993) Anchored narratives: the psychology of criminal evidence. Harvester Wheatsheaf, HertfordshireGoogle Scholar
  272. Walker VR (2007) Visualizing the dynamics around the rule/evidence interface in legal reasoning. Law Prob Risk 6(1–4):5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  273. Walton DN (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  274. Walton DN (2006) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  275. Walton DN, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  276. Wardeh M, Bench-Capon TJM, Coenen FP (2009) Padua: a protocol for argumentation dialogue using association rules. Artif Intell Law 17(3):183–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  277. Weber RO, Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2005) Textual case-based reasoning. Knowl Eng Rev 20(3):255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  278. Wigmore JH (1913) The principles of judicial proof or the process of proof as given by logic, psychology, and general experience, and illustrated in judicial trials. Little, Brown and Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  279. Wyner AZ (2008) An ontology in OWL for legal case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Law 16(4):361–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  280. Wyner AZ (2010) Towards annotating and extracting textual legal case elements. Informatica e Diritto 19(1–2):9–18Google Scholar
  281. Wyner AZ, Peters W (2010) Lexical semantics and expert legal knowledge towards the identification of legal case factors. In: Winkels R (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems (Jurix 2010). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 127–136Google Scholar
  282. Wyner AZ, Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson K (2007) Arguments, values and baseballs: representation of Popov v. Hayashi. In: Lodder A, Mommens L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems (Jurix 2007). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 151–160Google Scholar
  283. Wyner AZ, Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson K (2011) Formalising argumentation about legal cases. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  284. Yoshino H (1995) The systematization of legal meta-inference. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 266–275Google Scholar
  285. Yoshino H (1997) On the logical foundations of compound predicate formulae for legal knowledge representation. Artif Intell Law 5(1–2):77–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  286. Yoshino H (2011) The systematization of law in terms of the validity. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 121–25Google Scholar
  287. Yoshino H, Kakuta T (1993) The knowledge representation of legal expert system LES-3.3 with legal metainference. In: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium of legal expert system association. LESA, Tokyo, pp 1–9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Trevor Bench-Capon
    • 1
  • Michał Araszkiewicz
    • 2
  • Kevin Ashley
    • 3
  • Katie Atkinson
    • 1
  • Floris Bex
    • 4
    • 5
  • Filipe Borges
    • 6
  • Daniele Bourcier
    • 7
  • Paul Bourgine
    • 8
  • Jack G. Conrad
    • 9
  • Enrico Francesconi
    • 10
  • Thomas F. Gordon
    • 11
  • Guido Governatori
    • 12
  • Jochen L. Leidner
    • 9
  • David D. Lewis
    • 13
  • Ronald P. Loui
    • 14
  • L. Thorne McCarty
    • 15
  • Henry Prakken
    • 5
    • 16
  • Frank Schilder
    • 17
  • Erich Schweighofer
    • 18
  • Paul Thompson
    • 19
  • Alex Tyrrell
    • 20
  • Bart Verheij
    • 21
  • Douglas N. Walton
    • 22
  • Adam Z. Wyner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Department of Legal TheoryJagiellonian UniversityCracowPoland
  3. 3.University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.University of DundeeDundeeUK
  5. 5.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Legal Information SystemsParisFrance
  7. 7.Law and Complex Systems, CNRSParisFrance
  8. 8.Reseau National des Systemes ComplexesParisFrance
  9. 9.Thomson Reuters Global Resources, Catalyst LabBaarSwitzerland
  10. 10.Institute of Legal Theory and TechniquesItalian National Research Council (ITTIG-CNR)FlorenceItaly
  11. 11.Fraunhofer FOKUSBerlinGermany
  12. 12.NICTAQueensland Research LaboratorySt. LuciaAustralia
  13. 13.David D. Lewis ConsultingChicagoUSA
  14. 14.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Illinois-SpringfieldChicagoUSA
  15. 15.Department of Computer ScienceRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  16. 16.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  17. 17.Thomson Reuters Corporate Research and DevelopmentSaint PaulUSA
  18. 18.Faculty of Law, Centre for Computers and LawUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  19. 19.Dartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA
  20. 20.Thomson Reuters Corporate Research and DevelopmentNew YorkUSA
  21. 21.Department of Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  22. 22.Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and RhetoricUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations