Constructing Legal Arguments with Rules in the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF)

  • Thomas F. Gordon
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4884)

Abstract

The Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF), being developed in the European ESTRELLA project, defines a knowledge representation language for arguments, rules, ontologies, and cases in XML. In this article, the syntax and argumentation-theoretic semantics of the LKIF rule language is presented and illustrated with an example based on German family law. This example is then applied to show how LKIF rules can be used with the Carneades argumentation system to construct, evaluate and visualize arguments about a legal case.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aleven, V.: Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Ph.d., University of Pittsburgh (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexy, R.: A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Oxford University Press, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ashley, K.D.: Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning Series. MIT Press, Bradford Books (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook – Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bayles, M.D.: Procedural Justice; Allocating to Individuals. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bechhofer, S.: The DIG Description Logic interface: DIG 1.1. Technical report, D1 Implementation Group, University of Manchester (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beckett, D.: Rdf/xml syntax specification (revised) (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/
  8. 8.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Notation 3 (1998), http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3
  9. 9.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific American 284(5), 34–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clark, J.: Relax ng (September 2003), http://relaxng.org
  11. 11.
    Deborah, S.U.D.L.M., McGuinness, L. (Knowledge Systems Laboratory and van Harmelen, F.: OWL web ontology language overview, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
  12. 12.
    Ellson, J., Gansner, E., Koutsofios, L., North, S.C., Woodhull, G.: Graphviz — open source graph drawing tools. In: Mutzel, P., Jünger, M., Leipert, S. (eds.) GD 2001. LNCS, vol. 2265, pp. 483–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fallside, D.C., Walmsley, P.: Xml schema part o: Primer, 2nd edn (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/
  14. 14.
    S.C.: for Biomedical Informatics Research. The protege ontology editor and knowledge acquisition system (October 2007), http://protege.stanford.edu/
  15. 15.
    Gardner, A.: An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gordon, T.F.: An abductive theory of legal issues. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35, 95–118 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gordon, T.F.: The Pleadings Game; An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Springer, New York, Book version of 1993 Ph.D. Thesis; University of Darmstadt (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gordon, T.F.: Constructing arguments with a computational model of an argumentation scheme for legal rules. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 117–121 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-11), 875–896 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logics. In: Proceedings of the Twelth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), Budapest, Hungary, May 2003, pp. 48–57. ACM, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hage, J.C.: 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, pp. 30–39. ACM, New York (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hart, H.L.A.: The Concept of Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1961)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hewlett-Packard. Jena – a semantic web framework (October 2007), http://jena.sourceforge.net/
  24. 24.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B.N., Dean, M.: SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML, http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/
  25. 25.
    Loui, R.P.: Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14, 1–38 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F.: OWL Web Ontology Language overview, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
  27. 27.
    Pollock, J.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4), 481–518 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A dialectical model of assessing conflicting argument in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(3-4), 331–368 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6(2-4), 231–287 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    T. P. S. Project. PLT Scheme, http://www.plt-scheme.org/.
  31. 31.
    Rawls, J.: A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (1971)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rissland, E.L., Ashley, K.D., Loui, R.P.: AI and law: A fruitful synergy. Artificial Intelligence 150(1–2), 1–15 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Routen, T., Bench-Capon, T.: Hierarchical formalizations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35, 69–93 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sartor, G.: Reasoning with factors. Technical report, University of Bologna (2005)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    TopQuadrant. Topbraid composer (October 2007), http://www.topbraidcomposer.org/
  36. 36.
    Verheij, B.: Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11(2-3), 167–195 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Walton, D.: Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T.: Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas F. Gordon
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer FOKUSBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations