AI and Law Journal
- Special Issue
A History of AI and Law in 50 papers:
ICAIL at 25
2012 sees the 25th anniversary of the International Conference on AI and Law. This conference series has played an important role in the development of AI and Law, by bringing researchers together and developing a community, and by being the forum in which many important ideas were introduced.
To mark this anniversary, AI and Law journal will publish a special issue. More than 20 contributors have each written a short piece about some particular paper that appeared in ICAIL and has contributed to the contributor’s understanding of some aspect of AI and Law, and which still has some message for today. The issue will cover 50 such papers.
The special issue should appear as volume 20 number 3, the issue for September 2012. Contents are below. An author’s accepted version is here.
Contents
1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1
Structure. Trevor Bench-Capon . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2
Boston 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1
Richard K. Belew: A Connectionist Approach to
Conceptual Information Retrieval [26].
Commentary
by Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier and Paul Bourgine . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2
Carole D. Hafner. Conceptual
Organization of Case Law Knowledge Bases [114]. Commentary
by Adam Z. Wyner
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Trevor Bench-Capon, Gwen Robinson, Tom Routen, and Marek Sergot. Logic Programming
for Large Scale Applications in Law: A
Formalisation of Supplementary Benefit Legislation
[33].
Commentary by Adam Z. Wyner .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4
Jon Bing. Designing Text Retrieval Systems for Conceptual
Searching [58]. Commentary by
Erich
Schweighofer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3
Vancouver 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1
Trevor Bench-Capon. Deep Models, Normative Reasoning and
Legal Expert Systems [27].
Commentary
by L. Thorne McCarty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2
Kevin D. Ashley. Toward a Computational Theory of Arguing
with Precedents [15]. Commentary
by Henry Prakken
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3
D. A. Schlobohm and L. Thorne McCarty. EPS II: Estate
Planning with Prototypes [249].
Commentary
by Kevin Ashley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 15
3.4 Edwina L. Rissland and David
B. Skalak. Interpreting
Statutory Predicates [228]. Commentary
by Ronald P. Loui
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4
Oxford 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1 Joost Breuker
and Nienke den Haan.
Separating World and Regulation Knowledge: Where is
the Logic? [70]. Commentary
by Trevor Bench-Capon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 20
4.2
Henning Herrestad. Norms and
Formalization [132]. Commentary by Guido Governatori .
. 21
4.3 David B. Skalak and Edwina L.
Rissland. Argument Moves in a Rule-Guided
Domain [257].
Commentary
by Katie Atkinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5
Amsterdam 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1 Donald H. Berman and Carole D. Hafner.
Representing Teleological Structure in Case-based
Legal
Reasoning: The Missing Link [46]. Commentary by Trevor Bench-Capon .
. . . . . . 24
5.2
L. Karl Branting. A Reduction-Graph Model of Ratio Decidendi
[67]. Commentary by L. Thorne
McCarty
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 25
5.3 Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak and M. Timur Friedman.
BankXX: Supporting legal
arguments through heuristic retrieval [231]. Commentary
by Trevor Bench-Capon . . . . . . 27
5.4
Thomas F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game; An Artificial
Intelligence Model of Procedural
Justice [101]. Commentary by Henry Prakken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 28
5.5 Ronald P. Loui, Jeff Norman,
Jon Olson, and Andrew Merrill. A Design for Reasoning with
Policies, Precedents, and Rationales [166].
Commentary by Floris Bex . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.6
Trevor Bench-Capon. Neural Networks and Open Texture [28]. Commentary
by Bart Verheij 31
5.7
Giovanni Sartor. A Simple Computational Model for Nonmonotonic and Adversarial Legal
Reasoning [243]. Commentary
by Guido Governatori . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 33
6
University of Maryland 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 34
6.1
Haijme Yoshino. The Systematization
of Legal Meta-Inference [287]. Commentary by Michał
Araszkiewicz .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
6.2
Henry Prakken. From Logic to
Dialectics in Legal Argument. [200]. Commentary
by Trevor
Bench-Capon
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
6.3 Andre Valente and Joost Breuker. ON-LINE: An
Architecture for Modelling Legal Information
[267]
Commentary by Enrico Francesconi
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.4
Arthur M. Farley and Kathleen Freeman. Burden of Proof in
Legal Argumentation [88]. Commentary
by Thomas F. Gordon .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.5 Edwina L. Rissland and M. Timur Friedman. Detecting Change in
Legal Concepts [233].
Commentary
by Kevin Ashley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 41
6.6
L. Thorne McCarty. An Implementation of Eisner v. Macomber [179]. Commentary
by Kevin
Ashley
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 43
6.7 Edwina L. Rissland and Jody
J. Daniels. A hybrid CBR-IR approach to legal
information
retrieval [232]. Commentary
by Adam Z. Wyner . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7
Melbourne 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 46
7.1 Trevor Bench-Capon and Pepijn
Visser. Ontologies in legal information
systems; the need for
explicit specifications of domain
conceptualizations. [37] Commentary by Enrico Francesconi 46
7.2
Layman E. Allen and Charles S. Saxon. Achieving Fluency in Modernized and
Formalized
Hohfeld: Puzzles and Games for the LEGAL
RELATIONS Language [10]. Commentary by
Ronald
P. Loui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.3
Ronald P. Loui, Jeff Norman, Joe Altepeter,
Dan Pinkard, Dan Craven, Jessica Linsday,
Mark
A.
Foltz. Progress on Room 5: a testbed for public
interactive semi-formal legal argumentation
[168].
Commentary by Bart Verheij .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7.4 Thomas F. Gordon and Nikos Karacapilidis.
The Zeno Argumentation Framework [103]
Commentary
by Katie Atkinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7.5
J.C. Smith. The Use of Lexicons in Information Retrieval in Legal Databases.[259]. Commentary
by Erich Schweighofer
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.6 Vincent Aleven and Kevin D.
Ashley. Evaluating a Learning Environment for Case-Based
Argumentation Skills [6].
Commentary by Trevor Bench-Capon .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8
Oslo 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 55
8.1 Hadassa Jakobovits
and Dirk Vermeir.
Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks
[140].
Commentary by Trevor Bench-Capon .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
9
St Louis 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 57
9.1
Jack G. Conrad, and Daniel P. Dabney.
A cognitive approach to judicial opinion structure:
applying domain expertise to component
analysis [80]. Commentary by Paul Thompson .
. . 57
9.2
Khalid Al-Kofahi, Alex Tyrrell,
Arun Vachher and Peter Jackson.
A Machine Learning Approach
to Prior Case Retrieval [4]. Commentary
by Alex Tyrrell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
9.3
Jaap Hage. Formalising Legal Coherence [120]. Commentary
by Michał Araszkiewicz
.
. . . 60
9.4 Jean Hall and John Zeleznikow.
Acknowledging insufficiency in the evaluation of legal knowledgebased
systems: Strategies towards a broad based
evaluation model [127]. Commentary by Jack
G.
Conrad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 61
10
Edinburgh 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 62
10.1 Alexander Boer, Tom M. van Engers,
and RadboudWinkels.
Using Ontologies for Comparing
and Harmonizing Legislation [62] Commentary
by Enrico Francesconi . . . . . . . . . .
. 63
10.2 Katie Greenwood, Trevor Bench-Capon and Peter McBurney. Towards a computational account
of persuasion in law [110]. Commentary
by Henry Prakken . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 63
10.3 Stefanie Br¨uninghaus and
Kevin D. Ashley. Predicting Outcomes of Legal
Cased-Based Arguments
[72].
Commentary by Trevor Bench-Capon .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
11
Bologna 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 66
11.1 Ben Hachey and Claire
Grover. Automatic legal text summarisation: experiments with
summary
structuring [113]. Commentary
by Frank Schilder . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 66
12
Stanford University 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
12.1 Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor. Formalising
Arguments about the Burden of Persuasion.
[214]
Commentary by Douglas N. Walton .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
12.2 Floris Bex,
Henry Prakken and Bart Verheij.
Formalising Argumentative Story-based Analysis
of Evidence [50]. Commentary
by Douglas N. Walton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69
12.3 Jack G. Conrad and Frank Schilder.
Opinion mining in legal blogs [81]. Commentary
by
Jochen L. Leidner
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
12.4
Jason R. Baron and Paul Thompson. The search problem posed by large
heterogeneous data
sets in litigation: possible future
approaches to research [25]. Commentary by Dave Lewis . . 71
13
Barcelona 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 72
13.1
Kevin D. Ashley. Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological, and
hypothetical legal
reasoning [17]. Commentary
by L. Thorne McCarty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 72
13.2
Raquel Mochales and Marie-Francine Moens, Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts
[180].
Commentary by Floris Bex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 73
14
Pittsburgh 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 75
14.1
Jeroen Keppens. On
extracting arguments from Bayesian network representations of evidential
reasoning [149]. Commentary
by Floris Bex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 75
14.2 Mihai Surdeanu,
Ramesh Nallapati, George Gregory, JoshuaWalker
and Christopher D. Manning.
Risk
Analysis for Intellectual Property Litigation [261]. Commentary
by Jack G. Conrad 77
14.3 Floris Bex
and Bart Verheij.
Legal shifts in the process of proof [54]. Commentary
by Michał
Araszkiewicz .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
14.4 Alexander Boer and Tom M. van Engers.
An Agent-based Legal Knowledge Acquisition
Methodology for Agile Public Administration [63].
Commentary by Erich Schweighofer .
. 79
15
Looking to the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 80
15.1
Towards ICAIL 2013 in Rome: the start of the next 25 years of the research
program AI and
Law: Bart Verheij . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81