Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Approaches to Legal Ontologies pp 99–115Cite as

The Case-Based Reasoning Approach: Ontologies for Analogical Legal Argument

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 1))

Abstract

This paper discusses the state of the art in ontologies for case-based legal reasoning, but from the perspective of a consumer, not a developer. Today, although no one would develop a new case-based legal reasoning system without seriously considering the kind of ontology it should have, it is still hard to specify what such an ontology should provide. This paper shows what it should provide by way of an extended example. The paper proposes three specific roles for a case-based legal ontology and illustrates them in the context of a legal classroom discussion the yet-to-be invented CBR system should simulate, supported by an appropriate case-based ontology. The paper distills the ontological requirements for modeling the example’s case-based arguments and reviews if current research can meet those requirements. The concrete example helps to focus on and define goals for future developments in designing ontologies for case-based legal reasoning.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V. (2003). Using Background Knowledge in Case-Based Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1–2): 183–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals (The MIT Press). Based on (1988) Ph.D. Tech. Rep. No. 88-01 COINS, U. Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K., S. Brüninghaus (2006). Computer Models for Legal Prediction. Jurimetrics Journal, 46: 309–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K., C. Lynch, N. Pinkwart, V. Aleven (2008). A Process Model of Legal Argument with Hypotheticals. JURIX 2008. Firenze.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K., M. McLaren (1995). Reasoning with Reasons in Case-Based Comparisons. In M. Veloso, A. Aamodt (Eds.) ICCBR-95 LNCS (LNAI) 1010. Springer, Heidelberg, 133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, K., T. Bench-Capon (2007). Argumentation and Standards of Proof. In ICAIL 2007. ACM Press, New York, NY, 107–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T., G. Sartor (2003). A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values. Artificial Intelligence, 150: 97–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D., C. Hafner (1993). Representing Teleological Structure in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: The Missing Link. In ICAIL 1993. ACM Press, New York, NY, 50–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting, L.K. (2003). A Reduction-Graph Model of Precedent in Legal Analysis. Artificial Intelligence, 150: 59–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breuker, J., R. Hoekstra (2004a). DIRECT: Ontology-Based Discovery of Responsibility and Causality in Legal Cases: In T. Gordon (Ed.) Proceedings JURIX-2004. IOS-Press, Amsterdam, 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breuker, J., R. Hoekstra (2004b). Epistemology and Ontology in Core Ontologies: FOLaw and LRI-Core, Two Core Ontologies for Law. In Proceedings of the EKAW04 Workshop on Core Ontologies in Ontology Engineering, 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breuker, J., A. Valente, R. Winkels (2004). Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Information Management. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12(4): 241–277 Springer.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brüninghaus, S., K. Ashley (2003). Predicting the Outcome of Case-Based Legal Arguments. In G. Sartor (Ed.) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-03) ACM Press, New York, NY, 234–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chorley, A., T. Bench-Capon (2005). AGATHA: Automated Construction of Case Law Theories Through Heuristic Search. In ICAIL 2005. ACM Press, New York, NY, 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkenhainer, B., K. Forbus, D. Gentner (1989). The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples, Artificial Intelligence, 41(1): 1–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, M. (1988). The Nature of the Common Law, vol. 99. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gewirtz, P. (1982). The Jurisprudence of Hypotheticals. Journal of Legal Education, 32: 120 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T.F., D. Walton (2006). Pierson vs. Post Revisited—A Reconstruction Using the Carneades Argumentation Framework. In P.E. Dunne, T. Bench-Capon (Eds.) COMMA 2006. IOS Press, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-Based Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laera L., V. Tamma, J. Euzenat, T. Bench-Capon (2006). Arguing Over Ontology Alignments. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Ontology Matching, Athens, GA, 49–60, URL http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-225/paper5.pdf.

  • Lindahl, L. (2004). Deduction and Justification in the Law. The Role of Legal Terms and Concepts. Ratio Juris, 17: 182–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, D., R. Summers (Ed.) (1997). Interpreting Precedents. Ashgate/Dartmouth, Brookfield, VT.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L.T., N.S. Sridharan (1981). The Representation of an Evolving System of Legal Concepts: II. Prototypes and Deformations. LRP-TR-11. Lab. for CS Res. Rutgers U.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinty, L., B. Smyth (2002). Comparison-Based Recommendation. In S. Craw, A.D. Preece (Eds.) ECCBR 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2416. Springer, Heidelberg, 575–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, B. (2003). Extensionally Defining Principles and Cases in Ethics: An AI Model. Artificial Intelligence, 150: 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. (2006). Artificial Intelligence and Law, Logic and Argument Schemes. In D. Hitchcock, B. Verheij (Eds.) Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Springer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E.L., D.B. Skalak (1991). CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6): 839–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, B., B. Verheij (2004). Cases and Dialectical Arguments. An Approach to Case-Based Reasoning. On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2004: OTM 2004 Workshops. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari, A. Corsaro (Eds.) WORM’04: The Second International Workshop on Regulatory Ontologies. LNCS, vol. 3292. Springer, Heidelberg, 634–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. (2005). Property Law: Rules, Policies & Practices, 4th ed. Aspen Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyner, A. (2008). An Ontology in OWL for Legal Case-Based Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 16: 361–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarri, G. (2007). Ontologies and Reasoning Techniques For (Legal) Intelligent Information Retrieval Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 15(3): 251–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Research and Development Center, Intelligent Systems Program, and School of Law, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Kevin D. Ashley

Authors
  1. Kevin D. Ashley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin D. Ashley .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. European University Institute, Via Boccaccio, Villa Schifanoia 121, Florence, 50133, Italy

    Giovanni Sartor

  2. Institut de Dret i Tecnologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, 08193, Spain

    Pompeu Casanovas

  3. Ittig- CNR, Via dei Barucci 20, Firenze, 50127, Italy

    Mariangela Biasiotti

  4. Facultat de Dret, Institut de Dret i Tecnologia, Campus UAB, Edifici B, Barcelona - Bellaterra, 08193, Spain

    Meritxell Fernández-Barrera

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ashley, K.D. (2011). The Case-Based Reasoning Approach: Ontologies for Analogical Legal Argument. In: Sartor, G., Casanovas, P., Biasiotti, M., Fernández-Barrera, M. (eds) Approaches to Legal Ontologies. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0120-5_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation