Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Book review

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

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

References

  • Ashley, K. D. 1990.Modeling Legal Argument. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G. 1964 ed.Begriffsschrift und andere Aufsatze. Hildesheim: G. Olms.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geffner, H. A. & Pearl, J. 1990. A Framework for Reasoning with Defaults. InKnowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, ed. H. E. Kyburg, R. P. Loui & G. Carlson, 245–265, London:Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. 1993. The Pleadings Game. Ph.D. dissertation, Darmstadt University.

  • Hart, H. L. A. 1961.The Concept of Law. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J. M. 1921.A Treatise on Probability. London:Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. 1994. Defeasible Legal Rules (working notes). InAAAI Workshop Program: Computational Dialectics, Seattle; and personal communication.

  • Nitta, K., et al. 1994. Debate Model of New HELIC-II. Design paper, ICOT (in preparation).

  • Peirce, C. S. 1883.Studies in Logic. Boston:Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. 1967.Justice. New York:Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J. L. 1987. Defeasible Reasoning.Cognitive Science 11: 481–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D. 1985. On the Comparison of Theories: Preferring the Most Specific Explanation. In Proceedings ofThe Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles, 144–147. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D. 1988. A Logical Framework for Default Reasoning.Artificial Intelligence 36: 27–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. Personal communication.

  • Reiter, R. 1992. Twelve Years of Nonmonotonic Reasoning Research (abstract). In Proceedings ofThe Third International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, MA, 789. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. & Skalak, D. 1991. CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34: 839–887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G. 1993.Artificial Intelligence and Law. Oslo: Tano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simari, G. & Loui, R. 1992. A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and Its Implementation.Artificial Intelligence 53: 125–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas Aquinas, St. 1951.Philosophical Texts. London:Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. 1958.The Uses of Argument. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin S., Rieke, R. & Janik, A. 1979.An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soeteman, A. 1989.Logic in Law. Dordrecht:Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G. 1993. Studies in Defeasible Argumentation. Ph.D. diss., Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. 1990.Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barto, A. G. & Anandan, P. 1985. Pattern Recognizing Stochastic Learning Automata.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 15: 360–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belew, R. K. 1986. Adaptive Information Retrieval: Machine Learning in Associative Networks. Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Computer Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belew, R. K. 1987. A Connectionist Approach to Conceptual Information Retrieval. In Proceedings ofThe First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Boston, 116–126. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broglio, J., Callan, J. P. & Croft, W. B. 1993. An Overview of the INQUERY System as Used for the Tipster Project. Dept. of Computer Science Technical Report UM-CS-1993-085, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callan, J. P., Croft, W. B. & Harding, S. M. 1992. The INQUERY Retrieval System. In Proceedings ofThe Third International Conference on Database and Expert System Applications, Valencia, Spain, 78–83, New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P. & Kjeldsen, R. 1987. Information Retrieval by Constrained Spreading Activation in Semantic Networks.Information Processing and Management 23(4): 255–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, A. v.d.L. 1987.An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelbart, D. & Smith, J. C. 1991. Beyond Boolean Search: FLEXICON, A Legal Text-Based Intelligent System. In Proceedings ofThe Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Oxford, 225–234. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jing, Y. & Croft, W. B. 1994. An Association Thesaurus for Information Retrieval. In Proceedings ofRIAO 1994, Recherche d'Information Assistée par Ordinateur. Intelligent Multimedia Information Retrieval Systems and Management, New York, 146–160. Paris: Centre de Hautes Etudes Internationales d'Informatique Documentaire (C.I.D.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Quillian, M. R. 1967. Word Concepts: A Theory and Simulation of Some Basic Semantic Capabilities. InReadings in Knowledge Representation, ed. R. J. Brachman & H. J. Levesque, 97–118, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, H. & Petersen, J. 1994. A Cooccurrence-Based Thesaurus and Two Applications to Information Retrieval. In Proceedings ofRIAO 1994, Recherche d'Information Assistée par Ordinateur, Intelligent Multimedia Information Retrieval Systems and Management, New York, 266–274. Paris: Centre de Hautes Etudes Internationales d'Informatique Documentaire (C.I.D.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Turtle, H. 1990. Inference Networks for Document Retrieval. Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available as Technical Report UM-CS-1990-092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unger, R. M. 1986.The Critical Legal Studies Movement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valiant, L. G. 1984. A Theory of the Learnable.Communications of ACM 27(11): 1134–1142.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

    Ronald P. Loui

  2. Dept. of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts

    David B. Skalak

Authors
  1. Ronald P. Loui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David B. Skalak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Loui, R.P., Skalak, D.B. Book review. Artif Intell Law 3, 143–150 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00877697

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00877697

Search

Navigation