Ashley, K. D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....but apparently have not been envisaging using the system themselves in practice) whereas the Liverpool project is descriptive, and is admittedly high sky research. Another Liverpool paper [1] in the same forum as Ref. 15] is in the thriving domain of automated generation of legal arguments (cf. [13, 8]) Even there, the] techniques are not, however, straightforward to apply [1, p. 1080] It s worth pointing out, coming as it does from Bench Capon, an author with arguably unrivalled clarity of vision when it comes to assessing in realistic terms ambitious targets in AI Law. Other papers on ....

Ashley, K. D.: Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

....ICAIL 1993 paper, Berman Hafner presented another challenge for AI Law research, this time directed in the rst instance to the case based reasoning researchers in the eld. Berman Hafner argued that the then available case based reasoning systems, especially HYPO (Rissland and Ashley, 1987; Ashley, 1990), were unable to generate deep arguments of the kind lawyers produce, in terms of purposes, policies, interests and values. I think that AI Law researchers widely agree that these elements indeed play an essential role in legal rea This paper was inspired by Trevor Bench Capon s and ....

Ashley, K.: 1990, Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....at the University of Massachusetts were primarily interested in reasoning for law application cases. They used past cases to intepret a situation in court and to produce and assess arguments for both sides. Their theory was introduced in [1] Their implementation system was HYPO, introduced in [6]. The earliest case based reasoning system in Europe was developed by Michael M. Richter and his group at the University Kaiserslautern in Germany. Between 1988 and 1992, they developed the systems MOLTKE [22] and PATDEX [5] Their systems main purposes were to use case based reasoning to do ....

K. Ashley. Modeling legal arguments: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals.MIT Press and Bradford Books and Cambridge, 1990.

....be elaborated to allow for a richer representation of the process of argumentation. 1 Introduction The purpose of this paper is to establish some connections between precedent based argument as it is studied in the field of Artificial Intelligence and Law, particularly in the work of Ashley [2], and two other fields: deontic logic and nonmonotonic reasoning. The deontic logic appealed to here is a formalism originally inspired by van Fraassen [14] and then developed in more detail in my [7, 9] for reasoning in the presence of conflicting norms. This logic is described in Section 2 of ....

....[5, pp. 102 103] The goal of the present paper is to try to make literal sense of this suggestion by setting out a formal account of the oughts generated by past cases. 3 Precedent We begin with our representation of cases, a highly simplified version of the formalism introduced by Ashley in [1, 2] for describing the theory of legal argument underlying his HYPO system. Any particular legal case is characterized by a number of incidental features the particular individuals involved, their personal characteristics, and so on most of which are not legally relevant. Those features of a ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Kevin Ashley. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. The MIT Press, 1990.

....Abstract. This paper presents a translation method of casebased reasoning which changes similarity according to context into abductive logic programming based on a generalized stable model semantics [5] This kind of dynamic similarity can be found in CBR systems for legal reasoning such as HYPO [1]. Abductive logic programming is suitable to implement this dynamic similarity by regarding abducible predicates as similarity and changing abducible predicates by context. In this paper, we define a relevance criteria of cases for defendant and plaintiff and show how to change similarity between ....

....dependent on the viewpoint. Although legal reasoning is not deductive, there is some underlying reasoning mechanism. Thus, Ashley proposed a logical representation for relevance criteria [2] in adversarial case based reasoning which is a logical specification of the reasoning mechanism in HYPO [1]. In this paper, we propose another logical formalism of adversarial case based reasoning by using abductive logic programming. Firstly, we propose a partial matching mechanism of the current case with a previous case. This matching mech 1 Division of Electronics and Information Engineering, ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Ashley, K. D., Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, MIT press (1990).

....(CBR) and many studies have been done for analyzing properties of case based classification [1, 14, 10, 15, 12, 9, 13, 7] However, these studies only consider numerical similarity measures whereas there are other kinds of similarity measure for different tasks. Among these measures, HYPO system [2, 3] in a legal domain uses a similarity measure based on set inclusion of differences of attributes in cases. In this paper, we give an analysis of representability of boolean functions in case based classification using the above set inclusion based similarity. We show that such case based ....

....results of the above studies are important in their own rights, considered case based classifiers in these studies are based on numerical similarity measures. On the other hand, there are other similarity measures used in different tasks of CBR. Among existing CBR systems, a legal CBR system, HYPO [2, 3] uses a similarity measure based on set inclusion of differences of attributes in cases. The original usage of HYPO is to retrieve similar or contrasting precedents for an input case to create an arguments for the input case. However, we can use this similarity measure for classification as ....

Ashley, K. D.: Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals MIT press (1990)

....Indexing becomes particularly important when the knowledge chunks are large and complex, as is the case for stories and the cases used in casebased reasoning. One of the most common approaches to indexing is to treat an index as a summary of case. In the case based legal reasoning system HYPO (Ashley, 1990), for example, the legal cases are indexed by a list of the legal issues raised in them and the values of important features in the legal situation. It is possible to index stories by summarizing the events that occur in them (Osgood Bareiss, 1993) but this approach does not serve the purposes ....

Ashley, Kevin D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge: MIT Press.

....to locate passages within the newly retrieved documents. This integrated approach is motivated by our belief that past discussions provide good clues to finding new documents as well as assist in locating relevant passages within the new documents. The CBR component is a HYPO style CBR system (Ashley 1990) and the IR system is built upon INQUERY (Callan, Croft, Harding 1992) In the first stage, SPIRE is given a new problem or fact situation. The facts are input into a case frame representation. We assume that the representation was designed by domain experts based on their expertise, knowledge ....

Ashley, K. D. 1990. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA.

....reasoners solve problems or examine and explain possible outcomes to a scenario by relying on prior similar experiences. Case base reasoning (CBR) systems can be found in such diverse domains as cooking [8] medical diagnostics [11] manufacturing [10] game playing [12, 4] and legal applications [1, 15]. This research was supported while the first author was at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst by NSF Grant no. EEC9209623, State Industry University Cooperative Research on Intelligent Information Retrieval, Digital Equipment Corporation and the National Center for Automated Information ....

....relies on a case base of excerpts to locate passages within the newly retrieved documents. This approach is motivated by our belief that past discussions provide good clues to the location of new discussions. Figure 2 gives an overview of the system. The CBR component is a HYPO style CBR system [1] and the IR system is built upon INQUERY [3] To locate the passages in the second stage, SPIRE generates queries by using excerpts from past discussions of a feature. Each excerpt is an actual piece of text containing relevant information about a case feature and comes from an episode of ....

Kevin D. Ashley. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

No context found.

Ashley, K.D. 1990. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge: MIT Press.

....drawing becomes apparent in comparing the cases to the problem situation. The comparison allows one to place the problem situation in the continuum, thereby ranking it. This problem resembles the one addressed by the Hypo system, which makes legal arguments by comparing cases in trade secret law [3]. Hypo s approach used a knowledge representation technique called dimensions to model such aspects of a case as can be described by ranges of data. For example, in a problem situation dealing with an ethically questionable gift, a gift worth 5,000 may matter much more than a gift worth 50. ....

Ashley, K.D. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. The MIT Press / Bradford Books, 1990.

....of this paper, we describe our program, provide examples of the usefulness of the metarules in deciding when to provide advice, and report the results of our experiments. Overview of SIROCCO SIROCCO, an interpretive CBR program, extends techniques that have been applied to the legal domain [Ashley, 1990; Branting, 1991, Rissland et al. 1996] to the domain of engineering ethics. SIROCCO contributes a detailed, narrative case representation, including temporal relations between facts, and an extensional model of general principles and cited cases. It can retrieve cases over a wider range of ....

K. D. Ashley. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge: MIT Press.

....to make accurate predictions of the principles and past cases that are likely to be important in the analysis of new cases, 2) whether SIROCCO s temporal knowledge contributes to the accuracy of its predictions. This work extends interpretive CBR techniques (Kolodner 1993) from the legal domain (Ashley, 1990; Branting, 1991; Rissland et al. 1996; Aleven, 1997) to a new domain. Arguments in practical ethics are more freeform in style and structure than legal arguments. Ethics cases do not have binary outcomes (e.g. plaintiff wins or loses) but may require creative middle way solutions (Harris et ....

Ashley, K.D. 1990. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge: MIT Press.

....Why Viol. Not Viol. Changed, or Not Appl. II.1.a Violated I.1, II.1.a III.1, I.4, III.4 Engineer s judgment is overruled in a particular professional circumstance. 6] Overruling the Engineer s judgment may lead to the endangerment of the safety, health, property or welfare of the public [3, 9] Engineer does not notify the proper authority [11] B. The Board cited this evidence that conflicts with their conclusion: Code # Status Grouped With Overrides Why Relevant Why Viol. Not Viol. Changed, or Not Appl. III.1, I.4 Not violated III.1.b None Engineer has ....

....Changed, or Not Appl. III.1, I.4 Not violated III.1.b None Engineer has a client [1] Engineer acts as a faithful agent or trustee . 12] III.4 Not violated None None Engineer obtains confidential information concerning the business affairs . of a former client [2, 3] Engineer does not disclose the confidential information [11] C. The Board cited the following background information that neither directly supports nor directly conflicts with their conclusion: Case Citation Type Grouped with Q# Why Relevant Why Distinguished or Analogous 67 10 ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Ashley, K.D. 1990. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge: MIT Press.

....which should a reasoner focus upon and which should it ignore. AI CBR programs have explored different ways of representing the salience of similarities and differences and expanded the circumstances which a program can take into account in making a determination of salience. In HYPO (Ashley, 1990) and CATO (Aleven and Ashley, 1994) the circumstances included the side argued for, the set of cases being compared and the particular argument move involved (e.g. analogizing, distinguishing, citing counterexamples) In CABARET (Rissland and Skalak, 1991) the circumstances also included the ....

....the evaluators to criticize the comparison texts. Several evaluators questioned TT s lack of hypothetical analysis; the program makes immutable assumptions about reasons, actions, and actors. We will explore the possibility of hypothetically modifying problems in terms of factors as in HYPO (Ashley, 1990). Another repeated criticism involved the use of aggregate reasons to support an action. This was due, at least in part, to the fact that aggregate reasons are hard for the program to explain, since they require reference to other parts of the text. However, we have also considered that the ....

Ashley, K.D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT Press, Cambridge. Based on PhD. Dissertation.

.... eight core argument moves and their use in more elaborate multi case arguments ( issue based arguments ) In the CATO model, relevant similarities and differences among cases are represented using factors, stereotypical collections of facts that tend to make a case stronger or weaker for a side [Ashley, 1990]. The factors are related to more abstract legal knowledge in a knowledge structure called the Factor Hierarchy. CATO uses the Factor Hierarchy for a variety of purposes, among them reasoning about the significance of differences among cases and organizing arguments by issues. The CATO ....

Ashley, K. D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/.

....to its highest level, issues , representing the normative concerns of a particular body of law. Factors are domain specific expert knowledge of stereotypical collections of facts which tend normally to strengthen or weaken a conclusion that a side should win a particular kind of legal claim (Ashley, 1990). In this work, we are interested in factors which tend to strengthen or weaken a side s legal claim for trade secret misappropriation. Trade secret law is intended to protect commercial competitive information to the extent that an employer has taken steps to maintain the confidentiality of such ....

Ashley, K.D. (1990) Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. The MIT Press / Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA.

No context found.

Ashley, K. D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990.

No context found.

Ashley, K. D., 1990. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

No context found.

Ashley, K.D. 1990. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge: MIT Press.

No context found.

K.D.Ashley, Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, MIT Press, 1990.

No context found.

Ashley, K.D.: Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MA, MIT Press, 1990.

No context found.

Ashley, K., Modeling legal argument: reasoning with case and cases and hypotheticals, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1991.

No context found.

K D Ashley. Modeling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT Press, 1990.

No context found.

Ashley, K. D.: Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals MIT press (1990)

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC