Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Computable Models of the Law pp 162–184Cite as

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

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aleven, V.: Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Ph.d., University of Pittsburgh (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alexy, R.: A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Oxford University Press, New York (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bayles, M.D.: Procedural Justice; Allocating to Individuals. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bechhofer, S.: The DIG Description Logic interface: DIG 1.1. Technical report, D1 Implementation Group, University of Manchester (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beckett, D.: Rdf/xml syntax specification (revised) (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/

  8. Berners-Lee, T.: Notation 3 (1998), http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3

  9. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific American 284(5), 34–43 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Clark, J.: Relax ng (September 2003), http://relaxng.org

  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. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Fallside, D.C., Walmsley, P.: Xml schema part o: Primer, 2nd edn (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/

  14. S.C.: for Biomedical Informatics Research. The protege ontology editor and knowledge acquisition system (October 2007), http://protege.stanford.edu/

  15. Gardner, A.: An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gordon, T.F.: An abductive theory of legal issues. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35, 95–118 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-11), 875–896 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Hart, H.L.A.: The Concept of Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1961)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hewlett-Packard. Jena – a semantic web framework (October 2007), http://jena.sourceforge.net/

  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. Loui, R.P.: Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14, 1–38 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F.: OWL Web Ontology Language overview, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/

  27. Pollock, J.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4), 481–518 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6(2-4), 231–287 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. T. P. S. Project. PLT Scheme, http://www.plt-scheme.org/ .

  31. Rawls, J.: A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rissland, E.L., Ashley, K.D., Loui, R.P.: AI and law: A fruitful synergy. Artificial Intelligence 150(1–2), 1–15 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Routen, T., Bench-Capon, T.: Hierarchical formalizations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35, 69–93 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sartor, G.: Reasoning with factors. Technical report, University of Bologna (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  35. TopQuadrant. Topbraid composer (October 2007), http://www.topbraidcomposer.org/

  36. Verheij, B.: Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11(2-3), 167–195 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Walton, D.: Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin, Germany

    Thomas F. Gordon

Authors
  1. Thomas F. Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Law and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, 08193, Barcelona, Spain

    Pompeu Casanovas  & Núria Casellas  & 

  2. Badia Fiesolana, European University Institute, Via dei Roccettini 9, 50016, San Domenico di Fiesole, Florence, Italy

    Giovanni Sartor

  3. CIRSFID, Università di Bologna, Via Galliera 3, 40121, Bologna, Italy

    Rossella Rubino

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gordon, T.F. (2008). Constructing Legal Arguments with Rules in the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF). In: Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Casellas, N., Rubino, R. (eds) Computable Models of the Law. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4884. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-85568-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-85569-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation