Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 371–385 | Cite as

From Berman and Hafner’s teleological context to Baude and Sachs’ interpretive defaults: an ontological challenge for the next decades of AI and Law

  • Ronald P. LouiEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper revisits the challenge of Berman and Hafner’s “missing link” paper on representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning. It is noted that this was mainly an ontological challenge to represent some of what made legal reasoning distinctive, which was given less attention than factual similarity in the dominant AI and Law paradigm, deriving from HYPO. The response to their paper is noted and briefly evaluated. A parallel is drawn to a new challenge to provide deep structure to the legal context of textual meaning, drawing on the forthcoming work of two Constitutional law scholars who appear to place some faith in the ways of thinking that AI and Law has developed.

Keywords

Challenge problems Deep structure Defeasible reasoning Law of interpretation Legal context Legal reasoning Ontology Practical reasoning Policy reasoning Teleology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Jeff Norman, who contributed several key ideas here, and Trevor Bench-Capon for his many added references and thoughtful edits.

References

  1. Al-Abdulkarim L (2013) Dialogue interactions in oral hearings. In: DoCoPe@ JURIX, pp. 1–10Google Scholar
  2. Aleven V, Ashley KD (1997) Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment. Artif Intell Educ 39:87–94Google Scholar
  3. Aleven V, Ashley KD (1994) An instructional environment for practicing argumentation skills. In: AAAI, pp. 485–492Google Scholar
  4. Alexander CY (2006) Methods in biomedical ontology. J Biomed Inform 39(3):252–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amgoud L, Prade H (2009) Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artif Intell 173(3):413–436MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry J, Davis AP et al. (2000) Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet 25(1):25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ashley KD (1991) Modeling legal arguments reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Ashley KD (2009) Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological, and hypothetical legal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp. 1–10Google Scholar
  9. Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2009) Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artif Intell Law 17(2):125–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ashley KD, Rissland EL (2003) Law, learning and representation. Artif Intell 150(1):17–58MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Ashley KD, Aleven V (1991) Toward an intelligent tutoring system for teaching law students to argue with cases. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp. 42–52Google Scholar
  12. Atkinson K (2012) Introduction to special issue on modelling Popov v. Hayashi. Artif Intell Law 20(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2005) Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning. Artif Intell Law 13(1):93–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P (2005) Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial intelligence and Law. ACM, pp. 35–44Google Scholar
  15. Baude W, Sachs S (2017) The law of interpretation. Harvard Law Review 130, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  16. Beattie V, Collins B, Mcinnes B (1997) Deep and surface learning: a simple or simplistic dichotomy? Account Educ 6(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bench-Capon T (2002) The missing link revisited the role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bench-Capon T (2011) Relating values in a series of supreme court decisions. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2011 pp. 13–22Google Scholar
  19. Bench-Capon T, Modgil S (2009) Case law in extended argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM, pp. 118–127Google Scholar
  20. Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1):97–143CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K, Chorley A (2005) Persuasion and value in legal argument. J Logic Comput 15(6):1075–1097MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Bench-Capon T, Prakken H, Wyner A, Atkinson K (2013) Argument schemes for reasoning with legal cases using values. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp. 13–22Google Scholar
  23. Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K, Wyner A (2015) Using argumentation to structure E-participation in policy making. Transactions on large-scale data-and knowledge-centered systems XVIII. Springer, Berlin, pp. 1–29Google Scholar
  24. Berman DH, Hafner CD (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp. 50–59Google Scholar
  25. Branting LK (1991a) Building explanations from rules and structured cases. Int J Man-Mach Stud 34(6):797–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Branting LK (1991b) Reasoning with portions of precedents. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp. 145–154Google Scholar
  27. Branting LK (1993) A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artif Intell Law 2(1):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Bruninghaus S, Ashley KD (2003) Predicting outcomes of case based legal arguments. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 233–242Google Scholar
  29. Brüninghaus S, Ashley KD (2001) Improving the representation of legal case texts with information extraction methods. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp. 42–51Google Scholar
  30. Chin C, Brown DE (2000) Learning in science: a comparison of deep and surface approaches. J Res Sci Teach 37(2):109–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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):321–357MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Dung PM (2014) Argumentation for practical reasoning. Knowledge and systems engineering. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. Etzioni O (2014) Interview with Steve Lohr, NY Times Bits, 27 August 2014, Looking to the future of data scienceGoogle Scholar
  34. Fennell LA (1999) Between monster and machine: rethinking the judicial function. SCL Rev 51:183Google Scholar
  35. Fensel D (2001) Ontologies. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Fox J, Parsons S (1998) Arguing about beliefs and actions. Applications of uncertainty formalisms. Springer, Berlin, pp. 266–302Google Scholar
  37. Frank J (1930) Law and the modern mind. Transaction Publishers, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  38. Girle R, Hitchcock D, McBurney P, Verheij B (2003) Decision support for practical reasoning. In: Argumentation Machines, Springer, Netherlands, pp. 55–83Google Scholar
  39. Gomez-Perez A, Fernández-López M, Corcho O (2006) Ontological engineering: with examples from the areas of knowledge management, e-Commerce and the Semantic Web. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  40. Gordon TF (1993) The pleadings game. Artif Intell Law 2(4):239–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) Pierson vs. Post revisited. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, IOS Press, pp. 208–219Google Scholar
  42. Grabmair, M, Ashley KD (2011) Facilitating case comparison using value judgments and intermediate legal concepts. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, 2011, pp. 161–170Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Hage J (1996) A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):199–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hage J, Verheij B (1999) The law as a dynamic interconnected system of states of affairs: a legal top ontology. Int J Human-Comput Stud 51(6):1043–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hart, HLA (1948) The ascription of responsibility and rights. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, vol. 49, Aristotelian Society, Wiley, pp. 171–194Google Scholar
  47. Hay DB (2007) Using concept maps to measure deep surface and non-learning outcomes. Stud High Edu 32(1):39–57MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Looks M, Loui R, Cynamon B (2005) Dynamics of rule revision and strategy revision in legislative games. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2005, pp. 59–68Google Scholar
  49. Loui R (2001) Analogy and case based reasoning. In: Wilson RA, Frank CK (eds) The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. MIT press, Cambridge, pp. 99–101Google Scholar
  50. Loui R (2005) A mathematical comment on the fundamental difference between legal theory formation and scientific theory formation. In: Fourth international workshop on computational models of scientific reasoning and applicationsGoogle Scholar
  51. Loui R (2015) Scientific and legal theory formation in an era of machine learning: remembering background rules, coherence, and cogency in induction. APA Philos Comput 14(1):32–38Google Scholar
  52. Loui RP, Norman J (1995) Rationales and argument moves. Artif Intell Law 3(3):159–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McCarty LT (1989) A language for legal discourse I. basic features. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp. 180–189Google Scholar
  54. McCarty LT, Sridharan NS (1982) A computational theory of legal argument. Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers UniversityGoogle Scholar
  55. Modgil S (2009) Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif Intell 173(9):901–934MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. Nitta K, Shibasaki M, Sakata T, Yamaji T, et al. (1995) New HELIC-II: a software tool for legal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 5th ICAIL, ACM, pp. 287–296Google Scholar
  57. Noy NF (2004) Semantic integration a survey of ontology-based approaches. ACM Sigmod Rec 33(4):65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Noy NF, McGuinness DL (2001) Ontology development 101: a guide to creating your first ontology. Stanford University Kowledge Systems Laboratory (2001)Google Scholar
  59. Noy NF, Hafner CD (1997) The state of the art in ontology design: a survey and comparative review. AI Mag 18(3):53Google Scholar
  60. Noy NF, Musen MA (2000) Algorithm and tool for automated ontology merging and alignment. In: Proceedings of the 17th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-00) pp. 450–455Google Scholar
  61. Prakken H (1991) A tool in modelling disagreement in law: preferring the most specific argument. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp. 165–174Google Scholar
  62. Prakken H (1993) A logical framework for modelling legal argument. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp. 1–9Google Scholar
  63. Prakken H (2002) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):113–133CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  64. Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Logical models of legal argumentation. Springer, Berlin, pp. 175–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Prakken H, Sartor G (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Judicial applications of artificial intelligence. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 127–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Prakken H, Sartor G (1997) Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J Appl Non-classical Logics 7(1–2):25–75MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  67. Rescher N (1977) Dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Suny Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  68. Rissland EL (1989) Dimension-based analysis of hypotheticals from supreme court oral argument. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp. 111–120Google Scholar
  69. Rissland EL, Ashley KD (1987) A case-based system for trade secrets law. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp. 60–66Google Scholar
  70. Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1989) Combining case-based and rule-based reasoning: a heuristic approach. Proc IJCAI 1989:524–530zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  71. Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1991) CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. Int J Man-Machine Stud 34(6):839–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sartor G (2002) Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schmidhuber J (2015) Deep learning in neural networks: an overview. Neural Netw 61:85–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sergot MJ, Sadri F, Kowalski RA, et al. (1986) The British Nationality Act as a logic program. Commun ACM 29(5):370–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Singer JW (2012) Rule of reason in property law. UCDL Rev 46:1369Google Scholar
  76. Skalak DB, Rissland EL (1992) Arguments and cases: an inevitable intertwining. Artif Intell Law 1(1):3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  78. Valente A (1995) Legal Knowledge Engineering. A modelling approach. IOS Press, AmsterdamzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  79. Verheij B (1996) Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages. Proc NAIC 96:357–368Google Scholar
  80. Wardeh M, Wyner A, Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2013) Argumentation based tools for policy-making. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp. 249–250Google Scholar
  81. Wyner A, Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2007) Arguments, values and baseballs: representation of Popov v. Hayashi. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2007: the twentieth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems. pp. 151–160Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Illinois SpringfieldSpringfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations