The Case-Based Reasoning Approach: Ontologies for Analogical Legal Argument

Chapter
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 1)

Abstract

This paper discusses the state of the art in ontologies for case-based legal reasoning, but from the perspective of a consumer, not a developer. Today, although no one would develop a new case-based legal reasoning system without seriously considering the kind of ontology it should have, it is still hard to specify what such an ontology should provide. This paper shows what it should provide by way of an extended example. The paper proposes three specific roles for a case-based legal ontology and illustrates them in the context of a legal classroom discussion the yet-to-be invented CBR system should simulate, supported by an appropriate case-based ontology. The paper distills the ontological requirements for modeling the example’s case-based arguments and reviews if current research can meet those requirements. The concrete example helps to focus on and define goals for future developments in designing ontologies for case-based legal reasoning.

Keywords

Domain Ontology Argument Schema Legal Reasoning Economic Competition Factual Concept 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  2. Aleven, V. (2003). Using Background Knowledge in Case-Based Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1–2): 183–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashley, K. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals (The MIT Press). Based on (1988) Ph.D. Tech. Rep. No. 88-01 COINS, U. Mass.Google Scholar
  4. Ashley, K., S. Brüninghaus (2006). Computer Models for Legal Prediction. Jurimetrics Journal, 46: 309–352.Google Scholar
  5. Ashley, K., C. Lynch, N. Pinkwart, V. Aleven (2008). A Process Model of Legal Argument with Hypotheticals. JURIX 2008. Firenze.Google Scholar
  6. Ashley, K., M. McLaren (1995). Reasoning with Reasons in Case-Based Comparisons. In M. Veloso, A. Aamodt (Eds.) ICCBR-95 LNCS (LNAI) 1010. Springer, Heidelberg, 133–144.Google Scholar
  7. Atkinson, K., T. Bench-Capon (2007). Argumentation and Standards of Proof. In ICAIL 2007. ACM Press, New York, NY, 107–116.Google Scholar
  8. Bench-Capon, T., G. Sartor (2003). A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values. Artificial Intelligence, 150: 97–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berman, D., C. Hafner (1993). Representing Teleological Structure in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: The Missing Link. In ICAIL 1993. ACM Press, New York, NY, 50–59.Google Scholar
  10. Branting, L.K. (2003). A Reduction-Graph Model of Precedent in Legal Analysis. Artificial Intelligence, 150: 59–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breuker, J., R. Hoekstra (2004a). DIRECT: Ontology-Based Discovery of Responsibility and Causality in Legal Cases: In T. Gordon (Ed.) Proceedings JURIX-2004. IOS-Press, Amsterdam, 115–126.Google Scholar
  12. Breuker, J., R. Hoekstra (2004b). Epistemology and Ontology in Core Ontologies: FOLaw and LRI-Core, Two Core Ontologies for Law. In Proceedings of the EKAW04 Workshop on Core Ontologies in Ontology Engineering, 15–27.Google Scholar
  13. Breuker, J., A. Valente, R. Winkels (2004). Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Information Management. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12(4): 241–277 Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brüninghaus, S., K. Ashley (2003). Predicting the Outcome of Case-Based Legal Arguments. In G. Sartor (Ed.) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-03) ACM Press, New York, NY, 234–242.Google Scholar
  15. Chorley, A., T. Bench-Capon (2005). AGATHA: Automated Construction of Case Law Theories Through Heuristic Search. In ICAIL 2005. ACM Press, New York, NY, 45–54.Google Scholar
  16. Falkenhainer, B., K. Forbus, D. Gentner (1989). The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples, Artificial Intelligence, 41(1): 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eisenberg, M. (1988). The Nature of the Common Law, vol. 99. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Gewirtz, P. (1982). The Jurisprudence of Hypotheticals. Journal of Legal Education, 32: 120 f.Google Scholar
  19. Gordon, T.F., D. Walton (2006). Pierson vs. Post Revisited—A Reconstruction Using the Carneades Argumentation Framework. In P.E. Dunne, T. Bench-Capon (Eds.) COMMA 2006. IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-Based Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Laera L., V. Tamma, J. Euzenat, T. Bench-Capon (2006). Arguing Over Ontology Alignments. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Ontology Matching, Athens, GA, 49–60, URL http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-225/paper5.pdf.
  22. Lindahl, L. (2004). Deduction and Justification in the Law. The Role of Legal Terms and Concepts. Ratio Juris, 17: 182–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacCormick, D., R. Summers (Ed.) (1997). Interpreting Precedents. Ashgate/Dartmouth, Brookfield, VT.Google Scholar
  24. McCarty, L.T., N.S. Sridharan (1981). The Representation of an Evolving System of Legal Concepts: II. Prototypes and Deformations. LRP-TR-11. Lab. for CS Res. Rutgers U.Google Scholar
  25. McGinty, L., B. Smyth (2002). Comparison-Based Recommendation. In S. Craw, A.D. Preece (Eds.) ECCBR 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2416. Springer, Heidelberg, 575–589.Google Scholar
  26. McLaren, B. (2003). Extensionally Defining Principles and Cases in Ethics: An AI Model. Artificial Intelligence, 150: 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prakken, H. (2006). Artificial Intelligence and Law, Logic and Argument Schemes. In D. Hitchcock, B. Verheij (Eds.) Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Springer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  28. Rissland, E.L., D.B. Skalak (1991). CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6): 839–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roth, B., B. Verheij (2004). Cases and Dialectical Arguments. An Approach to Case-Based Reasoning. On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2004: OTM 2004 Workshops. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari, A. Corsaro (Eds.) WORM’04: The Second International Workshop on Regulatory Ontologies. LNCS, vol. 3292. Springer, Heidelberg, 634–651.Google Scholar
  30. Singer, J. (2005). Property Law: Rules, Policies & Practices, 4th ed. Aspen Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  31. Wyner, A. (2008). An Ontology in OWL for Legal Case-Based Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 16: 361–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zarri, G. (2007). Ontologies and Reasoning Techniques For (Legal) Intelligent Information Retrieval Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 15(3): 251–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Research and Development Center, Intelligent Systems Program, and School of LawUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations