Aleven, V., and K. D. Ashley, 1996. How Different is Different? Arguing about the Significance of Similarities and Differences. In Advances in Case-Based Reasoning: Proceedings EWCBR-96, edited by I. Smith and B. Faltings, 1-15. Berlin: Springer.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....reasoning, precedents, normative dialectics 1. Introduction General Setting Research on case based reasoning (CBR) is one on the main streams of AI law (e.g. McCarty Sridharan, 1981; Rissland Ashley, 1987; Ashley, 1990; Berman Hafner, 1991; Skalak Rissland, 1992; Branting, 1994 and Aleven Ashley, 1996). This research has provided not Much of the research reported in this article was done while the first author was employed at the Computer Law Institute of the Faculty of Law, Free University Amsterdam, supported by a research fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, ....

....we want to propose a richer method for representing cases than is allowed by HYPO. We shall also briefly compare our proposal to some other extensions of and alternatives to the HYPO approach, the CABARET system of Skalak Rissland (1991) the work of Branting (1991; 1994) and the CATO system of Aleven Ashley (1996; 1997) Our proposal has the following main ingredients. Both cases and case based reasoning are seen as pieces of argumentation. Firstly, each past case is represented as a completed or frozen piece of argumentation, i.e. as a dialectical argument structure. Such a piece of argumentation ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Aleven, V. & Ashley, K.D. 1996. How different is different? Arguing about the significance of similarities and differences. In Advances in Case-Based Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, eds. I.

....down the overall question of whether a trade secret was misappropriated into three more specific issues raised by the Mason facts. CATO identifies issues using its Factor Hierarchy, excerpted in Figure 4, which represents some of the meaning of factors by relating them to normative legal concerns [Aleven and Ashley, 1996]. At the bottom of the Factor Hierarchy are 26 base level factors for trade secrets law, at the top are 5 legal issues (indicated with a thick box in Figure 4) In between are 11 intermediate legal concerns. Each non leaf node in the Factor Hierarchy represents two opposing conclusions, one ....

....cases, to emphasize strengths. Also, it cites Dravo, Goldberg, and Televation to argue that the weaknesses in plaintiff s position (pro defendant factors) are not fatal. The Factor Hierarchy enables CATO, in discussing an issue, to focus on the strengths and weaknesses related to that issue [Aleven and Ashley, 1996]. During the CATO instruction, students studied several examples of issue based arguments about the Mason problem, generated by CATO (instructional steps 4 and 5, Figure 2) CATO presents the arguments, without the rhetorical recipe shown in Figure 5, in its Issue Based Argument Window. The ....

Aleven, V., and K. D. Ashley (1996). How Different is Different? Arguing about the Significance of Similarities and Differences. In Advances in Case-Based Reasoning: Proceedings EWCBR-96, edited by I. Smith and B. Faltings, 1-15. Berlin: Springer.

.... candidate cases for the case base have to be identified and read, the most important cases selected, and then represented with some combination of frames and factors which capture relevant factual strengths and weaknesses (see, e.g. HYPO (Ashley 1990) BANKXX (Rissland Daniels 1995) and CATO (Aleven Ashley 1996). Likewise, GREBE (Branting 1991) required that cases be coded by hand, as semantic networks. This need manually to represent cases described as texts has been one We would like to thank Vincent Aleven for his support and numerous contributions to this research, in particular for making ....

....automatically. We describe preliminary work on an approach to classifying texts automatically, in which we are using domain knowledge associated with structured CBR case representations to guide training of inductive machine learning programs to classify texts. The project builds upon CATO (Aleven Ashley 1996), an intelligent learning environment for teaching case based argumentation to law students. In CATO, cases are represented in terms of 26 factors, stereotypical fact patterns which tend to strengthen or weaken a legal claim. More abstract domain knowledge is captured in the Factor Hierarchy, a ....

Aleven, V., and Ashley, K. 1996. How Different is Different? Arguing about the Significance of Similarities and Differences. In Proc. of the 4th European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, 1--15.

.... Candidate cases have to be identified and read, the most pertinent cases selected, and then represented with some combination of frames and factors which capture relevant factual strengths and weaknesses (see, e.g. HYPO (Ashley 1990) BANKXX, Rissland, Skalak, Friedman 1993) and CATO (Aleven Ashley 1996)) This paper presents our work towards developing automatic methods for assigning abstract fact categories to legal case opinions so that the cases could then be used in a CATO style case based reasoning system. The project is strongly influenced by the model of legal case based argumentation of ....

....paper presents our work towards developing automatic methods for assigning abstract fact categories to legal case opinions so that the cases could then be used in a CATO style case based reasoning system. The project is strongly influenced by the model of legal case based argumentation of CATO (Aleven Ashley 1996). CATO is an intelligent learning environment for teaching case based argumentation skills to law students (Aleven Ashley 1997) Cases are represented in terms of factors, prototypical fact situations that tend to strengthen or weaken plaintiff s legal claim. In CATO s model of case based ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Aleven, V., and Ashley, K. 1996. How Different is Different? Arguing about the Significance of Similarities and Differences.

.... in the case base have to be identified and read, the most important cases selected, and then represented with some combination of frames and factors which capture relevant factual strengths and weaknesses (see, e.g. HYPO (Ashley 1990) BANKXX (Rissland, Skalak, Friedman 1993) and CATO (Aleven Ashley 1996). Likewise, GREBE (Branting 1991) required uniformity in representing cases to support matching, and although it used a relatively unstructured representation, the cases had to be coded by hand. This need manually to represent cases described as texts has been one of the chief disadvantages of ....

....of the cases (1) in the factor model, for the use in the CATO legal argumentation program, and (2)as text vectors, as common in Information Retrieval programs, which can be used as input to the machine learning algorithms we are using. 2. 1 Representation of Cases in CATO s Factor Model CATO (Aleven Ashley 1996) is an intelligent learning environment for teaching case based argumentation to law students. As with other CBR systems, tremendous amounts of time and effort had to be spent manually to build the CATO Case Database of 147 trade secret law cases. In contrast to other legal CBR systems, the model ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Aleven, V., and Ashley, K. 1996. How Different is Different? Arguing about the Significance of Similarities and Differences. In Proccedings of the 4th European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, 1--15.

No context found.

Aleven, V., and K. D. Ashley, 1996. How Different is Different? Arguing about the Significance of Similarities and Differences. In Advances in Case-Based Reasoning: Proceedings EWCBR-96, edited by I. Smith and B. Faltings, 1-15. Berlin: Springer.

No context found.

Aleven V., and Ashley K. D., 1996. How Different is Different? Arguing about the significance of Similarities and Differences, In Smith I and Faultings B (eds), Advances in Case-based Reasoning, Third European Workshop, EWCBR'96, Springer, Berlin, pages 2-15.

No context found.

Aleven, V., and K. D. Ashley, 1996. How Different is Different? Arguing about the Significance of Similarities and Differences. In Advances in Case-Based Reasoning: Proceedings EWCBR-96, edited by I.

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