What Can We Learn from the Legal Provisions in Judgment Documents?

  • Jianlin Zhu
  • Xiaoping Yang
  • Jingqiao Peng
  • Qian Wang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 183)

Abstract

So far, more than 2 million judgment documents represented in the same pattern and standard have come up in China, which can be viewed as a huge knowledge base. From 150 thousands judgment documents in 2012, authors extracted more than 4,000 legal provisions, obtained the combination relationship among the provisions, calculated their lapping relationship, and constructed their co-occurrence matrix and lapping matrix. Then, authors proposed four recommendation algorithms. Experimental results reveal that the proposed algorithms which are considered the combination and lapping relationship of legal provisions perform more precisely and more meaningfully than traditional similar case recommendation algorithms which are not considered the relationship of provisions.

Keywords

Combination provision Lapping provision Co-occurrence matrix Lapping matrix Recommendation algorithm 

References

  1. 1.
    Rissland, E.L., Valcarce, E.M., Ashley, K.D.: Explaining and arguing with examples. In: Proceedings Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-84), Austin, TX, pp. 288–294, August (1984)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashley, K.D.: Modelling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. Ph.D. diss., Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Su, H.-Y., Zhang, G.-Q., Shi, J.-S.: The future “computer judge”: the view on computer aided judgment expert system. Chin. Leg. Sci., 89–99 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feng, B,-Q., Ma, M.-H., Liu, J., et al.: The design and implementation of a legal expert system CESALEC. Acad. J. Xi’an Jiaotong Univ., 91–96 (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu, Q.: LEGES: a legal expert system based on compound knowledge structure. Chin. J. Comput., 634–637 (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gong, M.-J.: From computer-aided fortune-telling to computer-aided sentencing. Southern Metropolis Daily. 2004-5-25Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhao, T.-G.: A view on the theory of computer-aided sentencing. J. Hubei Univ. Police. 124–128 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang, D.-P.: Ontology based semantic retrieval for legal information. Comput. Eng. Appl. 44(28), 196–199 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang, D.-P.: The research method of semantic retrieval for legal information. Inf. Res. Legal Lit. 15(04), 1–10 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lu, M.-C.: The design and implementation of an OWL ontology-based legal knowledge base prototype system. J. Mod. Inf. 29(07), 34–38 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    He, Q., Tang, Y., Huang, Y.-Z.: The research and implementation of ontology-based legal knowledge base. Comput. Sci. 34(2), 175–177 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhong, Z.-H., Yin, R.-Y., Yu, Q.-M.: A model for ontology driven legal information retrival. Microcomput. Inf. 23(30), 178–180 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jia, J.-Z., Guo, D.-D.: The research of mapping the law FrameNet knowledge ontology to upper ontology. SUMO 52(4), 74–77 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jia, J.-Z., Tai, Y.-F.: A case study on text inference based on Chinese FrameNet. Ontology 52(7), 75–78 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin, D.-P.: The value and limitation of computer-aided sentencing. Law Sci. 5, 43–45 (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ji, W.-D.: Dialectical analysis of criminal punishment imposition through software. J. China Univ. Polit. Sci. Law 25(1), 124–128 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen, X.-L.: The lapping of legal provisions theory in criminal law. Stud. Law Bus. 2, 100–109 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhou, G.-Q.: Research on special relationship of legal provisions lapping: discuss with professor Zhang Ming-Kai. Chin. Leg. Sci. 3, 158–171 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bench-Capon, T.: Arguing with cases. In: Proceedings of JURIX 97, GNI: Nijmegen, pp. 85–100 (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ashley, K.D.: Modeling Legal Argument. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ashley, K.D., Aleven, V.: Toward an intelligent tutoring system for teaching lawstudents to argue with cases. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL-91), pp. 42–52. ACM Press, New York (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jianlin Zhu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiaoping Yang
    • 1
  • Jingqiao Peng
    • 1
  • Qian Wang
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Information SchoolRenmin University of ChinaBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Information Managment and EngineeringHebei Finance UniversityBaodingChina
  3. 3.School of PsychologyBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina
  4. 4.Student Office, North China Electric Power UniversityBaodingChina

Personalised recommendations