McCarty, L.T., A language for legal discourse I. basic structures. In: Proceedings of the second International Conference on AI and Law, ACM, Vancouver, 1989.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....of legal knowledge, including de nitions and evidential knowledge. Obviously, a uni ed treatment of defeasibility is to be preferred; cf. Prakken, 1996 ] Conceptual structures Others have focused on the formalisation of recurring conceptual legal structures. Important work in this area is McCarty s [ 1989 ] Language of Legal Discourse, which addresses the representation of such categories as space, time, mass, action, causation, intention, knowledge, and belief. This 4 strand of work is, although very important for AI Law, less relevant for our concerns, for the same reasons as in the deontic ....

L.T. McCarty. A language for legal discourse I. basic features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Articial Intelligence and Law, pages 180-189, New York, 1989. ACM Press.

....ratio of each precedent. This case description language must be capable of expressing any legally significant distinctions among the facts of cases. There is a growing recognition that no representation less expressive than firstorder predicate calculus is likely to be sufficient for this purpose [McC89]. A second requirement is a mechanism for exemplarbased reasoning. The hypotheticals posed in the context of Bourhill were contrived to minimize problems of case matching. In reality, few pairs of distinct cases can be found with identical material facts. As a result, justifying a conclusion ....

L. T. McCarty. A language for legal discourse 1. Basic features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vancouver, B.C., June 13-16 1989.

.... obligations that occur in the legal domain [McCarty and Sridharan, 1982, McCarty, 1986, McCarty, 1983] More recently, he has elaborated a knowledge representation language with a formal intuitionistic semantics that incorporates time, events, and actions, as well as permissions and obligations [McCarty, 1989b, McCarty, 1989a] In joint work with Dean Schlobohm, an estate planning attorney, McCarty has sketched out a design for a legal planning system [Schlobohm and McCarty, 1989] They argue that lawyers construct plans by retrieving prototype plans and transforming them to meet the clients goals. ....

....the designer to write and debug a system, and help both the designer and others to analyze, evaluate, and extend it. 3.4. 1 Syntax Features such as space, time, action, permission, obligation, knowledge, belief, and intention are necessary in the legal domain, as other researchers have noted [McCarty, 1989b] In addition, unpredictable idiosyncratic details occur in each new case, such as the fact that the kitchen in a house has a tile floor, or the taxpayer is a war veteran, or the taxpayer has two children, one of whom is ten years old. To represent the facts as given in the case reports as ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

McCarty, L. Thorne 1989b. A language for legal discourse: I. basic features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vancouver, British Columbia. 180--189.

.... for citizenship if your father would be eligible if he were still alive [33] And McCarty, also motivated by legal applications, has developed a wide class of hypothetical rules for computer based consultation systems, especially 121 systems for reasoning about corporate tax law and estate tax law [47, 49, 57]. Theoretical work on hypothetical inference has also been carried out, largely by the logic programming community. Most of this work focuses on the hypothetical insertion of atoms into a database. One reason for this focus is that hypothetical insertion fits neatly into a well known logical ....

L.T. McCarty. A Language for Legal Discourse. I. Basic Features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 180--189. ACM Press, June 1989.

....have a variety of applications, such as computer based medical and legal consultation systems. Kowalski and Sergot, for instance, have encoded the British Nationality Act in Prolog [15] and McCarty has developed systems for reasoning about tax law, especially corporate tax law and estate tax law [10, 14]. As laws are amended, such systems have to be updated. For instance, sections of the income tax act might be amended to treat residents as citizens. In this case, every occurrence of the predicate citizen could be replaced by a new predicate meaning citizen or resident . Likewise, other bodies ....

L.T. McCarty. A Language for Legal Discourse. I. Basic Features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 180--189. ACM Press, June 1989.

....2 cf. the special issues on ontologies of the International Journal of Human Computer Studies in Vol. 43, 1995 Vol. 46, 1997 with papers by, e.g. Gruber [1995] Guarino [1995, 1997] Hobbs [1995] Sowa [1995] Van Heijst, Schreiber and Wielinga [1997a and b] 3 cf. Bench Capon 1989, McCarty 1989, Valente 1995, Van Kralingen 1995, Visser 1995, and Bench Capon and Visser 1996, 1997. cf. also the proceedings of the First International Workshop on Legal Ontologies [eds. Visser and Winkels 1997] 4 The notions of states of affairs and events as we use them are related to, but not fully ....

....In the following section we will briefly compare our model with related work. 9 Related research We put our abstract model of the law in perspective by a discussion of related work by Valente [1995] and Van Kralingen [1995] and Visser [1995] Hage and Verheij [1997] also discuss the work of McCarty [1989] and the relations of the present abstract model with Reason Based Logic [e.g. Hage and Verheij 1994; Hage 1996, 1997; Verheij 1996] 9.1 Valente s functional ontology of law Valente [1995] has developed a functional ontology of law. This ontology is based on a functional perspective on the ....

McCarty, L.T. (1989). A Language for Legal Discourse I. Basic Features. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, p. 180-188. ACM, New York.

....2 cf. the special issues on ontologies of the International Journal of Human Computer Studies in Vol. 43, 1995 Vol. 46, 1997 with papers by, e.g. Gruber [1995] Guarino [1995, 1997] Hobbs [1995] Sowa [1995] Van Heijst, Schreiber and Wielinga [1997a and b] 3 cf. Bench Capon 1989, McCarty 1989, Valente 1995, Van Kralingen 1995, Visser 1995, Den Haan 1996, and Bench Capon and Visser 1996, 1997. cf. also the proceedings of the First International Workshop on Legal Ontologies [eds. Visser and Winkels 1997] 3 The model uses three primitives: States of affairs. A state of affairs can ....

....guidelines for the modeling of legal knowledge domains end the exposition of our abstract model of the law. In the following section we will briefly compare our model with related work. 15 Related research We put our abstract model of the law in perspective by a discussion of related work by McCarty [1989], Valente [1995] and Van Kralingen [1995] and Visser [1995] 13 cf. the terminology of the end of section 5. 22 15.1 McCarty s Language of Legal Discourse McCarty s [1989] begins the development of a deep conceptual model of the law in his paper on the Basic Features of a Language for ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

McCarty, L.T. (1989). A Language for Legal Discourse I. Basic Features. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, p. 180-188. ACM, New York.

....in AI Law seems to assume that law is to be represented as (and to some extent is) either a set of rules or a set of cases, and is to be treated as such by reasoning mechanisms. However, there are the exceptions that confirm the rule. The most notable is McCarty s Language of Legal Discourse [McCarty, 1989]. His modalities can be seen as knowledge categories of an ontology of Law, linked together with a formal (logical) presentation. One of these modalities, the so called deontic, have been subject to extensive research in the deontic logics, but this research is normally dissociated from broader ....

....refers to causal knowledge. 8 alone have been rather neglected in AI Law, but there has been some attempts to represent actions as a way towards these issues; in particular, there has been some work on logics of action associated with deontic logics (see for instance [vonWright, 1981] or [McCarty, 1989]) 3.4 Reactive and Creative Knowledge Two types of legal knowledge in our ontology have a relatively minor character, insofar as they are not part of the core of legal reasoning. Nevertheless, they are an important part of the structure and work of the legal system. These are the reactive and ....

L.T. McCarty. A language for legal discourse i. basic structures. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on AI and Law, pages 180--189, Vancouver, 1989. ACM.

....problem of representing cases with temporal structure, e.g. scripts [SA77] the dynamic memory model [Sch82, Kol84] multicases [ZWA93] semantic networks [Bra91a] etc. Other work has addressed the requirements for a representation of temporal relationships adequate for legal reasoning, e.g. McC89] However, none of this research has addressed the focus of the narrative grammar approach, which is use of temporal structure to simplify problem formulation, retrieval, and matching without sacrificing horizontal extensibility. 6 Conclusion This paper has proposed the use of narrative ....

L. T. McCarty. A language for legal discourse 1. Basic features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vancouver, B.C., June 13-16 1989.

.... for citizenship if your father would be eligible if he were still alive [26] And McCarty, also motivated by legal applications, has developed a wide class of hypothetical rules for computer based consultation systems, especially systems for reasoning about corporate tax law and estate tax law [38, 40, 46]. Theoretical work on hypothetical inference has also been carried out, largely by the logic programming community. Most of this work focuses on the hypothetical insertion of atoms into a database. These updates, it turns out, fit neatly into a well known logical system, intuitionistic logic [23] ....

L.T. McCarty. A Language for Legal Discourse. I. Basic Features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 180--189. ACM Press, June 1989.

....of the temporal logic developed by Shoham in [ Shoham, 1988 ] modified to incorporate the modal operators know, believe, want (or goal ) and obligated. This language is influenced by McDermott s temporal logic and also by the work of McCarty in representing legal concepts, especially [ McCarty, 1989b ] Part of the representation of one of chiron s cases is given in Figure 3; for the full representation of this case and the original text of the case, see [ Sanders, 1994 ] Associated with each strategy is a prototype. A prototype is represented using the same structure as a case, but with a ....

L. Thorne McCarty. A language for legal discourse: I. basic features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vancouver, British Columbia, pages 180--189, 1989.

....for system design, see Visser and Winkels, 1997) Below, we discuss four well known legal ontologies that could be used in the design of a LKS: a) McCarty s LLD, b) Stamper s NORMA, c) Valente s Functional Ontology of Law and (d) the Frame based Ontology of Van Kralingen and Visser. a) LLD McCarty (1989) has proposed a language for legal discourse (LLD) He considered the language to be a first step towards a general applicable representation language for legal knowledge. Although LLD itself is a representational language and not an ontology it clearly reveals a generic conceptualisation of the ....

....embedded negations, 4) default rules, and (5) prototype and deformations. Together atomic formulae and rules allow the creation first order expressions. Modalities are stated as second order expressions. The following modalities are supported: time, events and actions, and deontic expressions (McCarty, 1989). To express temporal statements LLD recognises states. A state essentially is the (temporal) reification of a predicate relation. Predicate relations can be reified both with points of time, as well as with intervals (two points of time) Changes in states are realised by events. Events are ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

McCarty, L.T. (1989). A Language for Legal Discourse, I. Basic Features, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp.180-189, Vancouver, Canada.

.... for citizenship if your father would be eligible if he were still alive [20] And McCarty, also motivated by legal applications, has developed a wide class of hypothetical rules for computer based consultation systems, especially systems for reasoning about corporate tax law and estate tax law [36, 38, 44]. In [6, 5] we investigated hypothetical reasoning in deductive databases. We considered rules that can hypothetically insert or delete facts from a database. In [6] we showed that with both insertion and deletion, the data complexity of hypothetical inference is complete for EXPTIME, while with ....

L.T. McCarty. A Language for Legal Discourse. I. Basic Features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 180--189. ACM Press, June 1989.

.... LEGONT 97 was held (Visser and Winkels, 1997) We here mention four legal ontologies that have gained some attention in the literature: a) McCarty s LLD, b) Stamper s NORMA, c) Valente s functional ontology of law, and (d) Van Kralingen Visser s frame based ontology. a) McCarty s LLD McCarty (1989) has proposed a language for legal discourse (LLD) The basic components of LLD are atomic formulae and rules. Together they allow the creation first order expressions. Modalities, such as time and permissions, are stated as second order expressions. Atomic formulae are merely predicate relations ....

....formulae with logical connectives. They have a left hand side which is an atomic formula, and a right hand side which is a compound expression. Modalities are stated as second order expressions. Currently, the following modalities are supported: time, events and actions, and deontic expressions (McCarty, 1989). To express temporal statements LLD recognises states. b) Stamper s Norma Formalism Stamper has criticised the use of traditional logics for the representation of (legal) knowledge because they suffer from some important semantic problems (Stamper, 1991) Briefly stated, traditional logics ....

McCarty, L.T. (1989). A Language for Legal Discourse, I. Basic Features, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp.180-189, Vancouver, Canada.

....specification designed with these issues in mind. One of the purposes of the paper is to advocate a logic programming approach to modal logics of action. Our work originates in a research effort to construct a logical language designed to support artificial intelligence models of legal reasoning [18, 22, 23]. Specifically, this work is motivated by the need for a logical framework in which to describe the facts of corporate taxation cases, i.e. facts about the world of business transactions, stocks, bonds, dividends, liquidations, corporate reorganizations etc. The representation of this domain of ....

L.T. McCarty. A language for legal discourse. I. Basic features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 180--189. ACM Press, June 1989.

....the implication around by an abductive inference. This abductive approach to planning has subsequently been followed up by others [ Shanahan, 1989; Missiaen, 1991; Denecker et al. 1992 ] Although our ultimate goal is to reason about actions with the complexity apparent in legal domains (see [ McCarty, 1989; Schlobohm and McCarty, 1989 ] our objectives in the present paper are more modest. We will study hypothetical implications in which the antecedent e.g. DistributeAssets(umc; efg; t 1 ; t 2 ) in (1) is an action defined by a set of Horn clauses. The work of Allen and Koomen [ 1983 ] ....

....an abductive inference. This abductive approach to planning has subsequently been followed up by others [ Shanahan, 1989; Missiaen, 1991; Denecker et al. 1992 ] Although our ultimate goal is to reason about actions with the complexity apparent in legal domains (see [ McCarty, 1989; Schlobohm and McCarty, 1989 ] our objectives in the present paper are more modest. We will study hypothetical implications in which the antecedent e.g. DistributeAssets(umc; efg; t 1 ; t 2 ) in (1) is an action defined by a set of Horn clauses. The work of Allen and Koomen [ 1983 ] and Eshghi [ 1988 ] essentially ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

L.T. McCarty. A language for legal discourse. I. Basic features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 180--189. ACM Press, June 1989.

No context found.

L.T. McCarty. A language for legal discourse. I. Basic features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 180--189. ACM Press, June 1989.

....on the right hand side of a rule. Thus, rules of the form A(x) B(x) C(x) are allowed. Several researchers have investigated the properties of these embedded implications [11, 10, 14, 15, 17, 4] and have shown them to be useful for hypothetical reasoning [2] for legal reasoning [16], for modular logic programming [17] and for lexical scoping [18] In a series of prior papers [4, 3, 6] Bonner, et al. have established various theoretical results on the complexity and expressibility of intuitionistic embedded implications in the function free (Datalog) case. For the full ....

L.T. McCarty. A Language for Legal Discourse. I. Basic Features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 180--189. ACM Press, June 1989.

....14] The legal domain has inspired much work into embedded implications. Gabbay, for instance, has reported a need to augment Prolog with such rules in order to encode the British Nationality Act [11] and McCarty has used such rules as the foundation of a general Language for Legal Discourse [17]. Most research so far has focussed on a subset of embedded implications in which universal quantifiers do not appear in the bodies of rules. Thus rules of the form A(x) B(x) C(x) have been considered, while rules of the form A 8 x [B(x) C(x) have not, one exception being the work of ....

L.T. McCarty. A Language for Legal Discourse. I. Basic Features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 180--189. ACM Press, June 1989.

No context found.

McCarty, L.T., A language for legal discourse I. basic structures. In: Proceedings of the second International Conference on AI and Law, ACM, Vancouver, 1989.

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