Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T11:47:14.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legal Applications of Logic Programming Workshop at the ICLP 94 Conference1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Daniela Tiscornia
Daniela Tiscornia
Affiliation:
National Research Council, IstÜuto per la Docurnentazione Giuridica, Florence, Italy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The representation of parts of legislation in logic, successively implemented in the language of logic programming and managed by Prolog interpreters, has by now existed for more than ten years. The first and most well-known projects were those by the Logic Programming Group of Imperial College of London which, in 1985, formalized the British Nationality Act (Sergot et al., 1986; Sergot, 1990). Other projects followed, for the most part European, including the Italian project, Esplex, developed in Florence (Biagioli et al., 1987), the Dutch project, Prolex, (Walker et al., 1990), the German project born of the collaboration between IBM and the University of Tubingen (Alschwee, Grundrnann, 1986), and the Japanese project, Les-2 (Yoshino, 1986).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 89 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexy, R, 1978. “Theorie der juristischen Argumentation”, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Alexy, R, 1992. Legal Argumentation as Rational Discourse.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, LE and Saxon, CS, 1986. “Analysis of the logical structure of legal rules by a modernized and formalized version of Hofheld's fundamental legal conceptions” In: Martino, AA and Soccie, F (eds.), Automated Analysis of Legal Texts, North-Holland.Google Scholar
Allen, LE and Saxon, CS, 1987. “Some problems in designing expert systems to aid legal reasoning” In: First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM Press, pp 94–103.Google Scholar
Allen, LE and Saxon, CS, 1991. “A-Hofheld: A language for robust structural representation of knowledge in the legal domain” In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON '91), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Alschwee, B and Grundmann, S, 1986. “System design for computer-aided juridical expert systems” In: Martino, AA and Socci, F (eds.), Automated Analysis of Legal Texts, North-Holland, pp 567–579.Google Scholar
Artosi, A, Cattabriga, P and Governatori, G, 1994. “KED: a deontic theorem prover” Preproceedings of the Workshop on Legal Applications of Logic Programming (ICLP 94), IDG, Firenze, pp 60–76.Google Scholar
Ashley, K, 1990. Modelling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ashley, K, 1993. “Case-based reasoning and its implications for legal expert systems” Artificial Intelligence and Law 2.Google Scholar
Bench, Capon T. and Coenen, F. 1991. “Exploiting isomorphism: Development of a KBS to support British Coal insurance claims” In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM, NY, pp 62–68.Google Scholar
Routen, T and Bench, Capon T, 1991. “Hierarchial formalisations” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernam, D and Hafner, C, 1993. “Representing teleological structure in case-based reasoning: the missing link” In: Proceedings of the Fourth ICAIL, Amsterdam, pp 50–59.Google Scholar
Bertarello, S, Costantini, S and Lanzarone, G, 1994. “Explanation-based learning of open textured predicates in logic programming models of law” In: Preproceedings of the Workshop on LegalApplications of Logic Programming (ICLP 94), IDG, Firenze, pp 13–32.Google Scholar
Biagioli, C, Mariani, P and Tiscornia, D, 1987. “EXPLEX: A rule and conceptual based model for representing statutes” In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, pp 240–251.Google Scholar
Branting, KL, 1991. “Reasoning with portion of precedents” In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM Press, pp 145–154.Google Scholar
Branting, KL, 1993. “A reduction-graph model for ratio decidendi” In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM Press, pp 40–49.Google Scholar
Breuker, J and den Hann, N, 1991. “Separating world and regulation knowledge: where is the logic?” In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM.Google Scholar
Costantini, S and Lanzarone, G, 1989. “Analogical reasoning in Reflective Prolog” In: Preproceedings of the Third international Conference Logica, Informatica, Diritto, Florence, pp 117–136.Google Scholar
Davies, TR and Russel, SJ, 1987. “A logical approach to reasoning by analogy” In Proceedings of the 3rd IJCAI, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Gordon, T, 1993. “The pleadings game–formalizing procedural justice” In: Proceedings of the Fourth ICAIL, Amsterdam, pp 10–19.Google Scholar
Hage, J, 1993. “Monological reason-based logic” In: Proceedings of the Fourth ICAIL, Amsterdam, pp 30–39.Google Scholar
Guidotti, P, Mariani, P, Sardu, G and Tiscornia, D, 1992. “Metalevel reasoning. The design of a system to handle legal knowledge bases” In: Proceedings of the 7th Italian Conference on Logic Programming (GULP 92), Milan.Google Scholar
Groendigk, C and Oskamp, A, 1993. “Case recognition and strategy classification” In: Proceedings of the Fourth ICAIL, Amsterdam, pp 125–134.Google Scholar
Hamfelt, A and Barklund, J, 1989. “Metalevels in legal knowledge and their runnable representation in logic” In: Preproceedings of the Third International Conference Logica, Informatica Diritto, Florence, pp 557–576.Google Scholar
Hamfelt, A and Barklund, J, 1992. “Hierarchical representation of legal knowledge with metaprogramming in logic” In: Proceedings of First Compulog-Net Workshop, London.Google Scholar
Hart, HL, 1961. The Concept of Law, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hofheld, WN, 1913. “Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning” Yale Law Journal (23).Google Scholar
Kakas, AC, Kowalski, R and Toni, F, 1992. “Abductive logic programming” Journal of Logic in Computation 2 (6) 719–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanger, S and Kanger, H, 1966. “Rights and parliamentarianism” Theoria (32).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalski, R and Sergot, M, 1989. “The use of logical models in legal problem solving” In: Narayan, and Bennum, (eds.), Law, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Ablex.Google Scholar
Kowalski, R, 1989. “The treatment of negation in logic programs for representing legislation” In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM, pp 11–15.Google Scholar
Kowalski, R, 1990. “Problem and promises of computational logic” In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Computational Logic, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Kowalski, R and Sadri, F, 1990. “Logic programs with exceptions” In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Logic Programming, MIT Press, pp 598–613.Google Scholar
Kowalski, R, 1991. “Legislation as logic programs.” Research Report, ESPRIT Basic Research Working Group 3152 on Foundations of Legal Reasoning.Google Scholar
Kowalski, R, 1994. “An abstract argumentation-theoretic framework for non-monotonic reasoning” Preproceedings of the Workshop on Legal Applications of Logic Programming (ICLP 94), IDG, Firenze.Google Scholar
Jones, A and Porn, I, 1985. “Ideality, sub-ideality and deontic logic” Syntheses 65 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A, 1990. “Deontic logic and legal knowledge representation” Ratio Iuris, (2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A and Sergot, M, 1992. “Deontic logic in the representation of law: towards a methodology” Artificial intelligence and the Law, 145–64.Google Scholar
Lindhal, L, 1977. Position and Change, Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loui, R, Norman, J, Olson, J and Merril, A, 1993. “A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales” In: Proceedings of the Fourth ICAIL, Amsterdam, pp 202–211.Google Scholar
Morris, P and McDermid, J, 1991. “The structure of permission: A normative framework for access right” In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON '91), Amsterdam.Google Scholar
McCarthy, LT, 1986. “Permissions and Obligations: An informal introduction” In: Martino, AA and Natali, F Socci (eds.), Automated Analysis of Legal Texts: Logic, Informatics, Law, North-Holland, pp 307–337.Google Scholar
McCarthy, LT, 1989. “A Language for legal discourse, 1. Basic features” In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Al and Law, Vancouver, pp 202–211.Google Scholar
McCarthy, LT, 1994. “Modalities over actions. I Model Theory” In: Preproceedings of the Workshop on Legal Applications of Logic Programming (ICLP 94), IDG, Firenze, pp 2–13.Google Scholar
Nitta, K, Young, S and Yoshihisa, Ohtake, 1993. “A computational model for trial reasoning” In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Al and Law, Amsterdam, pp 20–29.Google Scholar
Nitta, K, Shibasaki, M, Sakata, T, Yamaji, T, Ohsaki, H, Tojo, S.Kobubo, I and Suzuki, T, 1994. “Knowledge representation of new HELIC 11” In: Preproceedings of the Workshop on Legal Applications of Logic Programming (ICLP 94), IDG, Firenze.Google Scholar
Nute, D, 1988. “Defeasible reasoning: a philosophical analysis in Prolog” Aspects of Artificial Intelligence.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perelman, CR and Olbrechts-Tyeca, L, 1958. “Traiti de l'argumentation. La nouvelle rhetorique.” Paris, PUF. (It. Trans.: Trattato dell'argomentazione. La nuova retorica. Torino, Einaudi, 1956.)Google Scholar
Poole, DL, 1988. “A logical framework for default reasoning” Artificial Intelligence 36 (1) 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, JL, 1987. “Defeasible reasoning” Cognitive Science 11 481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakken, H, 1992. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, Free Universitat, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Prakken, H, 1993. In: Proceedings of the IV ICAIL, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Sartor, G, 1991. “The structure of norm conditions and nonmonotonic reasoning in law” In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM Press, pp 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartor, G, 1993. “A simple computational model for nonmonotonic and adversarial legal reasoning” In: Proceedings of the IV ICAIL, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Sergot, M, Sadri, F, Kowalski, R, Kriwaczek, R, Hammond, P and Cory, HT, 1986. “The British Nationality Act as a logic program” Communications of the ACM 29 370–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sergot, M, 1990. “The representation of law in computer programs: A survey and comparison” In: Capon, T Bench (ed.), Knowledge Based Systems in the Law, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sergot, M, 1991. “The representation of law in computer programs” In: Capon, T Bench (ed.), Knowledge Based Systems and Legal Applications, Academic Press, pp 3–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skalak, DB and Rissland, E. 1992. “Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining” Artificial intelligence and Law 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S, 1958. The uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tojo, S and Nina, K. 1994. “Automatic generation of temporal relations in a legal case” Preproceedings of the Workshop on Legal Applications of Logic Programming (ICLP 94), IDG, Firenze.Google Scholar
Valente, A and Breuker, J, 1994. “A commonsense formalization of normative systems” In: Preproceedings of the Workshop on Legal Applications of Logic Programming (ICLP 94), IDG, Firenze.Google Scholar
Walker, RF, Oskamp, A, Schrickx, JA, Odporp, G and van der Bergh, G, 1990. “Prolexs: creating law and order in Heterogeneous domain” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieringa, RJ and Meyer, J, 1993. “Applications of deontic logic in computer science: A concise overview” In: Deontic Logic in Computer Science, Wiley.Google Scholar
Yao-Hua, Tan L and van, der Torre, 1994. “DIADE: deontic logic founded on a theory of diagnosis from first principles” In: Preproceedings of the Workshop on Legal Applications of Logic Programming (ICLP 94), IDO, Firenze, pp 138–151.Google Scholar
Yoshino, H, Kagayama, S, Otha, S, Kithara, M, Kondoh, H, Nakakawaji, M, Ishimaru, K and Takao, S, 1986. “Legal expert systems les-2” In: Goos, G and Harmanis, J (eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, pp 34–35.Google Scholar
Yoshino, H, Haraguchi, M, Sakurai, S and Kagayama, S, 1993. “Towards a legal analogical system: Knowledge representation and reasoning methods” In: Proceedings of IV ICAIL, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Yoshino, H, 1994. “Representation of legal knowledge by compound predicate formula” In: Preproceedings of the Workshop on Legal Applications of Logic Programming (ICLP 94), IDG, Firenze.Google Scholar