Creating Rules Using Abduction for Legal Reasoning by Logic Programming

  • Tanapon Tantisripreecha
  • Nuanwan Soonthornphisaj
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 97)


To create rules for a legal knowledge base, a knowledge from a lawyer cannot be represented in a predicate rule immediately. On the other hand, a programmer cannot create the rule to cover all of the legal knowledge base. Therefore, we need the procedure to suggest a legal expert. Indeed, the rules cannot be created only by facts or rules from legislation but also depend on the interpretation of each expert. In this paper, we proposed a procedure to create rules for legal knowledge base. First, a set of rules is created using based rules and compound rules procedure. Second, the rules are selected by abduction for the legal reasoning process. Finally, we improved a Switch of Burden of Proof (SBP) [1] which is the legal reasoning system to examine the rules obtained from abduction. Thai Civil and Commercial Code is used as a knowledge base. The result showed that using our approach can find rules for an explanation of each legal case.


logic programming knowledge representation legal reasoning abduction rule rules formalization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Satoh, K., Tojo, S., Suzuki, Y.: Formalizing a Switch of Burden of Proof by Logic Programming. In: Proceedings of The 1st International Workshop on Juris-Informatics (JURISIN 2007), pp. 76–85 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Satoh, K., Kubota, M., Nishigai, Y., Takano, C.: Translating the Japanese Presupposed Ultimate Fact Theory into Logic Programming. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2009), pp. 162–171 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sergot, M.J., Sadri, F., Kowalski, R.A., Kriwaczek, E., Hammond, P., Cory, H.T.: The British Nationality Act as A Logic Program. Communications of the ACM 29, 370–386 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Merritt, D.: Building Expert Systems in Prolog (1967)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Satoh, K., Tojo, S., Suzuki, Y.: Abductive Reasoning for Burden of Proof. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Juris-informatics (JURISIN 2008), Japan, pp. 93–102 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lakkaraju, S.K., Zhang, Y.: Rule Based Abduction. In: Ohsuga, S., Raś, Z.W. (eds.) ISMIS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1932, pp. 525–533. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tuzet, G.: Legal Abduction. In: Bourcier, D. (ed.) The Sixteenth Annual Conference Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Jurix 2003, Amsterdum, pp. 41–50 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graca, N., Quaresma, P.: How to Model Legal Reasoning using Dynamic Logic Programming: a Preliminary Report. In: Proceedings of Legal Knowledge Information System. Jurix 2003: The Sixteenth Annual Conference, pp. 163–172. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gordon, T.F., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Rules and Norms: Requirement for Rule Interchange Languages in the Legal Domain. In: Governatori, G., Hall, J., Paschke, A. (eds.) RuleML 2009. LNCS, vol. 5858, pp. 282–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Truszczyński, M.: Logic Programming for Knowledge Representation. In: Dahl, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) ICLP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4670, pp. 76–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thai Civil and Commercial code, section 898-1005 (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ma, J.: Distributed Abductive Reasoning System and Abduction In the Small. In: [MEng] Computing Final Year Project Report (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tanapon Tantisripreecha
    • 1
  • Nuanwan Soonthornphisaj
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, Faculty of ScienceKasetsart UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations