Advertisement

Model Generated Interface for Modeling and Applying Decisional Knowledge

  • Thomas Tamisier
  • Yoann Didry
  • Olivier Parisot
  • Jérôme Wax
  • Fernand Feltz
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 88)

Abstract

Automated reasoning techniques are crucial for situations in which a huge number of heterogeneous reasoning rules must be taken into account. They allow both ensuring the coherence of the system and making the decision process equitable and more efficient. The National Bureau for Family Allowance of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg is responsible for the attribution of allowances to more than 160,000 individuals whose cases, due to the peculiarity of the local economy based on foreign laborers, and given the European and bilateral agreement between countries, pertain to different legislations. This paper presents Cadral, a decision support system under development for processing the allowance applications. The system mixes an inference engine based on the Soar forward-chaining architecture with an interpreter for easy-to-write-behavior rules, so that a non-computer specialized user can update the system, according to the evolution of the law. The rules record administrative procedures used for the processing of the applications, while links to a legal database, used in connection with the reasoning trace of the system, allows exhibiting a legal justification of the resulting decisions.

Keywords

Juridical decision support systems Knowledge representation Information retrieval 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gordon Thomas, F.: From Jhering to Alexy - Using Artificial Intelligence Models in Jurisprudence, Legal Knowledge and Information System. In: Proc. of Jurix Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 19–32 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fehling, M.R.: Unified Theories of Cognition: Modeling Cognitive Competences. Artificial Intelligence 59(1-2), 295–328 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Groothuis Marga, M., Svennsson Joergen, S.: Expert System Support and Juridical Quality, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. In: Proc. of Jurix Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 1–10 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Softlaw Expert-System, http://expert.Softlaw.com.au/fdss
  5. 5.
    O’Callaghan, T.A., Popple, J., McCreath, E.: Building and Testing the Shyster-Mycin Hybrid Legal Expert System, Technical Report, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Australia National University, Camberra (2003), http://cs.anu.edu.au/software/shyster
  6. 6.
    Eijlander, P.: The Possibilities and Limitations of Using Intelligent Tools for Drafting Legislation, Legal Knowledge and Information System. In: Proc. of Jurix Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 5–10 (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forgy, C.L.: Rete: a Fast Algorithm for the Many Pattern / Many Object Pattern Match Problem. Artificial Intelligence 19, 17–37 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laird, J.E., Newell, A., Rosenbloom, P.S.: Soar: an architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 33(1), 1–64 (1987)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laird, J.E., et al.: The Soar User’s Manual, version 8.2. University of Michigan (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Tamisier
    • 1
  • Yoann Didry
    • 1
  • Olivier Parisot
    • 1
  • Jérôme Wax
    • 1
  • Fernand Feltz
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre de Recherche Public - Gabriel LippmannBelvauxLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations