Rulebase Technology and Legal Knowledge Representation

  • Giuseppe Contissa
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4884)

Abstract

This paper reflects the results of a study conducted as a side work connected with the development of ALIS (Automated Legal Intelligent System), modeling a representation of legal knowledge in the area of intellectual property rights using the RuleBurst rule-based system technology. In this first stage, our work has been focused on Italian Copyright law, with the aim to develop a method that could be extended and applied, in a subsequent stage, to other IP legislations in Europe. The integration in the ALIS decision support system of the Ruleburst inferencing system with an advanced legal text retrieval engine and a game-theory strategy engine is facilitated by using a (quasi) natural language-knowledge representation, enhancing the benefits of isomorphism.

Keywords

ALIS copyright law Rule-based system Knowledge Representation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Coenen, F.P.: Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1(1), 65–86 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karpf, J.: Quality assurance of Legal Expert Systems, Jurimatics No 8, Copenhagen Business School (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borsari, G., Cevenini, C., Contissa, G.S., Still, P.: Hare: An Italian Application of SoftLaw’s STATUTE Expert Technology. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 225–229. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dayal, S., Harmer, M., Johnson, P., Mead, D.: Beyond Knowledge Representation: Commercial Uses For Legal Knowledge Bases. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM Press, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guastini, R.: Teoria e dogmatica delle fonti. Giuffrè, Milan, Italy (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gordon, T.f.: The Pleadings Game – an exercise in computational dialetics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2(4), 239–292 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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. 225–229. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boer, A., Winkels, R., Vitali, F.: Proposed XML standards for law: Metalex and LKIF. In: Lodder, A.R., Mommers, L. (eds.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 165, pp. 19–28. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoekstra, R., Breuker, J., Di Bello, M., Boer, A.: The LKIF Core Ontology of Basic Legal Concepts. In: Casanovas, P., Biasiotti, M.A., Francesconi, E., Sagri, M.T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (2007), http://www.ittig.cnr.it/loait/LOAIT07-Proceedings.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe Contissa
    • 1
  1. 1.CIRSFID – University of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations