Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive computing and proposed approaches to conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases: a proposed model for information preparation, indexing, and analysis

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Carole Hafner’s scholarship on the conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases (COC) was an original approach to distilling a library’s worth of cases into a manageable subset that any given legal researcher could review. Her approach applied concept indexation and concept search based on an annotation model of three interacting components combined with a system of expert legal reasoning to aid in the retrieval of pertinent case law. Despite the clear value this tripartite approach would afford to researchers in search of cases with similar fact patterns and desired (or undesired) outcomes, this approach has not been applied consistently in the intervening years since its introduction. Specifically, the conceptual representation of domain concepts and the case frames were not pursued by researchers, and they were not applied by the legal case indexing services that came to dominate the electronic case law market. Advances since Hafner’s original scholarship in the form of (1) digitized case law and related materials; (2) computer science analytical protocols; and (3) more advanced forms of artificial intelligence approaches present the question of whether Hafner’s COC model could move from the hypothetical to the real.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alarie B (2016) The path of the law: toward legal singularity. Available at Social Science Research Network 2767835. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2767835. Accessed 07 Sept 2016

  • Alden C, Ellis S, Lesnak B, Mueller J, Ryan MC (2007) Trends in federal judicial citations and law review articles. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Roundtable Discussion, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

  • Arrow KJ et al (1953) Contributions to the theory of games, II edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Baluja S, Mittal VO, Sukthankar R (2000) Applying machine learning for high-performance named-entity extraction. Comput Intell 16(4):586–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1–2):97–143

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K, Chorley A (2005) Persuasion and value in legal argument. J Log Comput 15(6):1075–1097

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T, Prakken H, Wyner A, Atkinson K (2013) Argument schemes for reasoning with legal cases using values. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 13–22

  • Berman D, Hafner C (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based reasoning: the missing link. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, pp 50–59

  • Berring RC (1986) Full-text databases and legal research: backing into the future. High Technol Law J 1(1):27–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Berring RC (1987) Legal research and legal concepts: where form molds substance. Calif Law Rev 75:15–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair D, Maron ME (1985) An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system. Commun ACM 28(3):289–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boguraev B, Patwardhan S, Kalyanpur A, Jr C-C, Lally A (2014) Parallel and nested decomposition for factoid questions. Nat Lang Eng 20(04):441–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouzeghoub M, Lenzerini M (2001) Introduction to: data extraction, cleaning, and reconciliation a special issue of information systems, an international journal. Inf Syst 26(8):535–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouzy B, Cazenave T (2001) Computer Go: an AI oriented survey. Artif Intell 132(1):390–403

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Browne C, Powley E, Whitehouse D, Lucas SM, Cowling PI, Rohlfshagen P, Tavener S, Perez D, Samothrakis S, Bush V (1945) As we may think. Atl Mon 101–108

  • Campbell M, Hoane AJ, Hsu FH (2002) Deep blue. Artif Intell 134(1):57–83

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chang CCK, Garcia-Molina H, Paepcke A (1999) Predicate rewriting for translating Boolean queries in a heterogeneous information system. ACM Trans Inf Syst (TOIS) 17(1):1–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiticariu L, Li Y, Reiss FR (2013) Rule-based information extraction is dead! Long live rule-based information extraction systems! In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 827–832

  • Chu-Carroll J, Brown E, Lally A, Murdock JW (2012) Identifying implicit relationships. IBM J Res Dev 56(3.4):12

    Google Scholar 

  • Colton S (2012) A survey of Monte Carlo tree search methods computational intelligence and AI in games. IEEE Trans Comput Intell AI Games 4(1):1–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler KM (2015) YC’s ROSS Intelligence Leverages IBM’s Watson to make sense of legal knowledge. TechCrunch. http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/27/ROSS-intelligence. Accessed 07 Sept 2016

  • Dixon JA (2016) Harvard Launches “Free the Law” Digitization Project. Library Journal. http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2015/12/oa/harvard-launches-free-the-law-digitization-project/. Accessed 07 Sept 2016

  • Doddington GR, Mitchell A, Przybocki M, Ramshaw L, Strassel S, Weischedel R (2004) The Automatic Content Extraction (ACE) program-tasks, data, and evaluation. In: Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, vol 2, p 1

  • Ferrucci D, Brown E, Chu-Carroll J, Fan J, Godek D, Kalyanpur AA, Lally A, Murdock JW, Nyberg E, Prager J, Schlaefer N, Welty C (2010) Building Watson: an overview of the DeepQA Project. AI Magazine 31(3):59–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrucci D, Levas A, Bagchi S, Gondek D, Mueller ET (2013) Watson: beyond Jeopardy. IBM J Res Dev 199:93–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung ST, Tam V, Lam EY (2011) Enhancing learning paths with concept clustering and rule-based optimization. Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT). In: 2011 11th IEEE international conference on. advanced learning technologies (ICALT), pp 249–253

  • Garrett J (2006) KWIC and dirty? Human cognition and the claims of full-text searching. J Electron Publ 9(1). http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0009.106?view=text;rgn=main. Accessed 07 Sept 2016

  • Gelly S, Wang Y (2006) Exploration exploitation in go: UCT for Monte-Carlo go. In: NIPS: Neural Information Processing Systems Conference On-line trading of Exploration and Exploitation Workshop

  • Gladwell M (2011) Creation Myth: Xerox PARC, Apple, and the truth about innovation. The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/16/creation-myth. Accessed 07 Sept 2016

  • Gondek DC, Lally A, Kalyanpur A, Murdock W, Duboé PA, Zhang L, Pan Y, Qiu ZM, Welty C (2012) A framework for merging and ranking answers in DEEPQA. IBM J Res Dev 56(3.4):14-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffo C, Almeida JP, Guizzardi G (2015) A systematic mapping of the literature on legal core ontologies. In: 7th Brazilian Symposium on Ontology Research

  • Grossman MR, Cormack GV (2013) The Grossman-Cormack glossary of technology-assisted review. Fed Courts Law Rev 7:85

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman MR, Cormack GV (2016) A tour of technology-assisted review. Perspectives on Predictive Coding and Other Advanced Search and Review Technologies for the Legal Practitioner (ABA 2016)

  • Grover C, Hachey B, Hughson I, Korycinski C (2003) Automatic summarisation of legal documents. In: International conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 243–251

  • Grover C, Hachey B, Hughson I (2004) The HOLJ Corpus: supporting summarisation of legal texts. In: The 5th International Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora

  • Gruman G (2007) Treasure hunt. CIO Magazine. http://www.cio.com.au/article/204860/treasure_hunt/?pp=3. Accessed 07 Sept 2016

  • Guha R, McCool R, Miller E (2003) Semantic search. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, pp 700–709

  • Hachey B, Grover C (2006) Extractive summarisation of legal texts. Artif Intell Law 14(4):305–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafner C (1987) Conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp 35–42

  • Hafner C, Berman D (2002) The role of context in case-based legal reasoning: teleological, temporal, and procedural. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):19–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández MA, Stolfo SJ (1998) Real-world data is dirty: data cleansing and the merge/purge problem. Data Min Knowl Discov 2(1):9–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson B (2015) Meet ROSS, the Watson-powered super intelligent super attorney itbusiness.ca. www.itbusiness.ca/news/meet-ROSS-the-watson-powered-super-intelligent-attorney/53376. Accessed 07 Sept 2016

  • Jain LC, Lazzerini B (eds) (1999) Knowledge-based intelligent techniques in character recognition. CRC, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyanpur A, Patwardhan S, Boguraev BK, Lally A, Chu-Carroll J (2012) Fact based question decomposition in DEEPQA. IBM J Res Dev 56(34):13-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koziel S, Michalewicz Z (1999) Evolutionary algorithms, homomorphous mappings, and constrained parameter optimization. Evol Comput 7(1):19–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE (2012) Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 1097–1105

  • Le Q, Mikolov T (2014) Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In: ICML

  • Lemieux S (2012) Auto-classification: Friend or Foe of taxonomy management?. CMS WiRE. http://www.cmswire.com/cms/information-management/autoclassification-friend-or-foe-of-taxonomy-management-014222.php. Accessed 07 Sept 2016

  • Lippe P, Martin KD (2014) 10 predictions about how IBM’s Watson will impact the legal profession. ABA Journal. http://www.abajournal.com/legalrebels/article/10_predictions_about_how_ibms_watson_will_impact/. Accessed 07 Sept 2016

  • Liu B (2016) Can artificial intelligence ever give legal advice? Brief 43(6):8

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo J, Savakis AE, Singhal A (2005) A Bayesian network-based framework for semantic image understanding. Pattern Recognit 38(6):919–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandziuk J (2007) Computational intelligence in mind games. In: Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 407–442

  • Metz C (2016) In two moves, AlphaGo and Lee Sedol redefine the future. Wired. http://www.wired.com/2016/03/two-moves-alphago-lee-sedol-redefined-future/. Accessed 06 Sept 2016

  • Moyer C (2016) How Google’s AlphaGo Beat a Go World Champion. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/03/the-invisible-opponent/475611/. Accessed 06 Sept 2016

  • Navigli R, Ponzetto SP (2012) BabelNet: the automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network. Artif Intell 193:217–250

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Newman AJ, Richardson CI, Kain SM, Stankiewicz PG, Guseman PR, Schreurs BA, Dunne JA (2016) Reconnaissance blind multi-chess: an experimentation platform for ISR sensor fusion and resource management. In: SPIE Defense + Security. International Society for Optics and Photonics, p 984209

  • Noy N, Hafner C (1997) The state of the art in ontology design: a survey and comparative review. Artif Intell Mag 18(3):53

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel N (2016) Everything you need to know about semantic search and what it means for your Website. The Daily Egg. https://blog.crazyegg.com/2016/02/02/everything-about-semantic-search/. Accessed 07 Sept 2016

  • Pelletier F, Loubier S (2016) Collaboration among Legal Information Providers in Quebec: CAIJ and Lexum’s Shared Vision. J Open Access Law 4(1)

  • Rahman AFR, Fairhurst MC (2003) Multiple classifier decision combination strategies for character recognition: a review. Doc Anal Recognit 5(4):166–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regard D, Matzen T (2013) A re-examination of Blair & Maron (1985). DESI V Position Paper

  • Reidenberg JR, Debelak J, Kovnot J, Bright M, Russell NC, Alvarado D, Seiderman E, Rosen A (2013) Internet Jurisdiction: A survey of legal scholarship published in English and United States Case Law. Center on Law and Information Policy

  • Robel LK (1989) The myth of the disposable opinion: unpublished opinions and government litigants in the United States Courts of Appeals. Mich Law Rev 87(5):940–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross J, Royan B (1977) Backfile conversion today: CIM era or chimera? Program 11(4):156–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotman D (2013) How technology is destroying jobs. MIT Technol Rev 16(4):28–35

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin A (2016) Weaving Cognitive into Couture: Watson and Machesa Collaborate for the Met Gala, IBM Blog. (https://www.ibm.com/blogs/think/2016/04/29/watson-and-marchesa). Accessed 07 Sept 2016

  • Sanchez E, Yamanoi T (2006) Fuzzy ontologies for the semantic web. In: Larsen L et al (eds) Flexible query answering systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 691–699

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Satoh J (2008) Judicial review in Japan: An overview of the case law and an examination of trends in the Japanese Supreme Court’s Constitutional Oversight. Loyola Los Angeles Law Rev 41:603

    Google Scholar 

  • Sills A (2016) ROSS and Watson tackle the law. IBM Blog. https://www.ibm.com/blogs/watson/2016/01/ROSS-and-watson-tackle-the-law. Accessed 07 Sept 2016

  • Silver D, Huang A, Maddison CJ, Guez A, Sifre L, van den Driessche G, Schrittwieser J, Antonoglou I, Panneershelvam V, Lanctot M, Dieleman S, Grewe D, Nham J, Kalchbrenner N, Sutskever I, Lillicrap T, Leach M, Kavukcuoglu K, Graepel T, Hassabis D (2016) Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nat Int J Wkly Sci 529:484–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonite T (2016) How Google plans to solve artificial intelligence MIT technology review. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601139/how-google-plans-to-solve-artificial-intelligence/. Accessed 07 Sept 2016

  • Smallwood RF (2014) Information governance: concepts, strategies, and best practices. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Taal A, Le J, Sherer J (2015) A consideration of eDiscovery technologies for internal investigations. In: International conference on global security, safety, and sustainability. Springer, Berlin

  • Tadena N (2016) IBM Watson’s data-crunching capabilities are gaining traction among companies in the marketing space. The Wall Street Journal. http://www.wsj.com/articles/ibm-watsons-data-crunching-gains-traction-with-marketing-firms-1463569201. Accessed 07 Sept 2016

  • Tarakeswar K, Kavitha D (2011) Search engines: a study. J Comput Appl (JCA) 4(1):29–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran T, Cimiano P, Rudolph S, Stude R (2007) Ontology-based interpretation of keywords for semantic search. In: Aberer K et al (eds) The semantic web. Springer, Berlin, pp 523–536

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van der Werf EDC (2005) AI techniques for the game of Go. UPM, Universitaire Pers Maastricht, The Netherlands Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251 (D. Md. 2008)

  • Visser PR, Bench-Capon TJ (1998) A comparison of four ontologies for the design of legal knowledge systems. Artif Intell Law 6(1):27–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang C, Kalyanpur A, Fan J, Boguraev B (2012) Relation extraction and scoring in DEEPQA. IBM J Res Dev 56(3.4):9-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyner A (2012) Carole D. Hafner conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases. In: T Bench-Capon et al (eds) A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law 6-7

  • Zhang C, Wu D (2008) Concept extraction and clustering for topic digital library construction. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology-volume 03

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DeutscheBank AG, New York, NY, USA

    Amie Taal

  2. BakerHostetler, New York, NY, USA

    James A. Sherer & Emily R. Fedeles

  3. Barclays, New York, NY, USA

    Kerri-Ann Bent

Authors
  1. Amie Taal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James A. Sherer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kerri-Ann Bent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emily R. Fedeles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amie Taal.

Additional information

The views expressed herein are solely those of the authors, should not be attributed to their places of employment, colleagues, or clients, and do not constitute solicitation or the provision of legal or security advice.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taal, A., Sherer, J.A., Bent, KA. et al. Cognitive computing and proposed approaches to conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases: a proposed model for information preparation, indexing, and analysis. Artif Intell Law 24, 347–370 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-016-9188-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-016-9188-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation