Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Artificial Intelligence and Law
Published in: Artificial Intelligence and Law 3/2012

01-09-2012

A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law

Authors: Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton, Adam Z. Wyner

Published in: Artificial Intelligence and Law | Issue 3/2012

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into a history of the last quarter century of the field, and provide some insights into where it has come from, where it is now, and where it might go.
next article Implications of a logical paradox for computer-dispensed justice reconsidered: some key differences between minds and machines

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
1
Joint research project of the Stanford Research Institute, California and the KVAL Institute for Information Science, Stockholm.
 
2
The other early reference is to Karpf (1989), which does not seem to be available online.
 
3
To my embarrassment I must say that until now I never cited Ashley’s 1989 paper, since I always cite his book on HYPO (Ashley 1990). Most other authors do the same, which explains why his 1989 paper is not much cited. However, I have always used not the book but my hard copy of the ICAIL 1989 paper to check Ashley’s definitions, witness the many handwritten notes it contains.
 
4
Post was chasing a fox with horse and hounds. As he closed in for the kill, Pierson killed the fox with a fence pole and bore it off. Pierson won since Post did not have clear bodily possession of the fox, even though this might discourage fox hunting.
 
5
Stare decisis must bow to changing values, as Justice Marshall put it in Furman v. Georgia.
 
6
An expanded version of the ICAIL 1993 paper was also published in Artficial Intelligence and Law (Branting 1993b)
 
7
This paper was a summary of Gordon’s PhD thesis of the same year, which later appeared in revised form as Gordon (1995).
 
8
Bench-Capon discusses a third question, namely whether we can derive rules from the networks. Because of the way in which he addresses this question, it is not further discussed here.
 
9
A question remains however: the network has 45 and 50 as significant ages, instead of 60 and 65. Bench-Capon gives no explanation for this oddity: is it a systematic consequence of the learning rule used, perhaps a small bug in the set up?
 
10
In fact this journal paper was still in press and so (Prakken 1995) refers to Dung’s 1993 IJCAI paper.
 
11
Personal communication via email with Kathleen Freeman.
 
12
It also impacted strongly on how conferences were organised. At this time submission was by multiple hard copies which had to be distributed to reviewers by “snail mail”. Electronic submission was still for the future: originally, controversially, as an option.
 
15
These and other graphical formats for the presentation of arguments are discussed in Verheij (2005).
 
17
See the UK site: http://​epetitions.​direct.​gov.​uk/​, or the US site: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions. Accessed April 3rd 2012
 
19
See: http://​www.​policy-impact.​eu/​. Accessed April 3rd 2012.
 
20
This paper also introduced one of the classic AI and Law cases, Mason v. Jack Daniels Distillery, 518 So.2d 130, 1987 Ala. Civ. App., to AI and Law. A bartender, Tony Mason, invented a cocktail, Lynchburgh Lemonade comprising Jack Daniel’s whiskey, Triple Sec, sweet and sour mix, and 7-Up. It proved surprisingly popular. Mason met Winston Randle, a sales representative for Jack Daniel Distillery, and they talked about the drink, and its possible use in a promotion. Approximately one year later the defendants were developing a national promotion campaign for Lynchburg Lemonade. Mason claimed that he had parted with the recipe because he had been told that his band would be used in the promotion. In fact Mason received nothing. The jury found for the plaintiff, but awarded only a dollar in damages. Following Aleven and Ashley (1997) Mason joined Eisner v. Macomber (see Sect. 6.6) and the wild animals cases following Pierson v. Post (see Sect. 5.1) in the AI and Law canon.
 
21
Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where Scott lost 2–7.
 
22
Now part of the Thomson Reuters Corporation.
 
23
Atkinson is Katie’s married name. She was on honeymoon in the Maldives during ICAIL 2003.
 
25
This sub section was originally published by the author and is reprinted here by his kind permission. Thanks are due to the author for granting this permission.
 
Literature
Ågotnes T, van der Hoek W, Tennenholtz M, Wooldridge M (2009) Power in normative systems. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2009, pp 145–152
Adelman L, Gualtieri J, Riedl SL (1994) A multifaceted approach to evaluating expert systems. Artif Intell Des Anal Manufact 8(4):289–306
Aleven V (1997) Teaching case-based argumentation through an example and models. PhD Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Aleven V, Ashley KD (1997) Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 170–179
Alexy R (1978) Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als eine Theorie der juristischen Begründung. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main
Alexy R (1985) Theorie der Grundrechte. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main
Al-Kofahi K, Grom B, Jackson P (1999) Anaphora resolution in the extraction of treatment history language from court opinions by partial parsing. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 138–146
Al-Kofahi K, Tyrrell A, Vachher A, Jackson P (2001) A machine learning approach to prior case retrieval. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 88–93
Allen LE, Saxon CS (1995) Better language, better thought, better communication: the A-Hohfeld language for legal analysis. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 219–228
Allen LE, Saxon CS (1997) Achieving fluency in modernized and formalized hohfeld: puzzles and games for the LEGAL RELATIONS Language. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 19–28
Amaya A (2000) Formal models of coherence and legal epistemology. Artif Intell Law 15(4):429–447CrossRef
Anderson TJ, Schum DA, Twining WL (2005) Analysis of evidence, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Antoniou G (2004) Defeasible logic with dynamic priorities. Int J Intell Syst 19(5):463–472MATHCrossRef
Araszkiewicz M (2010) Balancing of legal principles and constraint satisfaction. In: Winkels R (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2010. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 7–16
Ashley KD (1989) Toward a computational theory of arguing with precedents. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 93–102
Ashley KD (1990) Modeling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT Press, USA
Ashley KD (2009) Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological, and hypothetical legal reasoning In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10
Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2003) A predictive role for intermediate legal concepts. In: Bourcier D (ed) Proceedings of Jurix 2003. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 153–162
Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2009) Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artif Intell Law 17(2):125–165CrossRef
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM (2005) Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning. Artif Intell Law 13(1):93–131CrossRef
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM (2007a) Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artif Intell 171(10–15):855–874MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM (2007b) Argumentation and standards of proof. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 107–116
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, Cartwright D, Wyner AZ (2011) Semantic models for policy deliberation. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 81–90
Baron JR, Thompson P (2007) The search problem posed by large heterogeneous data sets in litigation: possible future approaches to research. In: proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 141–147
Belew RK (1987) A connectionist approach to conceptual information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 116–126
Bench-Capon TJM (1989) Deep models, normative reasoning and legal expert systems. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 37–45
Bench-Capon TJM (1993) Neural networks and open texture. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 292–297
Bench-Capon TJM (1998) Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In: Hage J et al (eds) Legal knowledge-based systems. Jurix 1998. Gerard Noodt Instituut, Nijmegen, pp 5–19
Bench-Capon TJM (2002) The missing link revisited: the role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):79–94CrossRef
Bench-Capon TJM (2012) Relating values in a series of supreme court decisions. In: Atkinson K (ed) Legal knowledge-based systems. Jurix 2011. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 13–22
Bench-Capon TJM, Coenen FP (1992) Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artif Intell Law 1(1):65–86CrossRef
Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2000) Using values and theories to resolve disagreement in law. In: Breuker J, Leenes R, Winkels R (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2000. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 73–84
Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2001) A quantitative approach to theory coherence. In: Lodder A, Loui R, Muntjewerff A (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2001. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 53–62
Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1–2):97–143MATHCrossRef
Bench-Capon TJM, Gordon F (2009) Isomorphism and argumentation. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 11–20
Bench-Capon TJM, Prakken H (2006) Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) Computational models of argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2006. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 247–258
Bench-Capon TJM, Rissland EL (2001) Back to the future: dimensions revisited. In: Lodder A, Loui R, Muntjewerff A (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2001. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 41–52
Bench-Capon TJM, Staniford G (1995) PLAID—proactive legal assistance. Proceedings of the fifth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 81–88
Bench-Capon TJM, Visser PRS (1997) Ontologies in legal information systems; the need for explicit specifications of domain conceptualizations. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 132–141
Bench-Capon TJM, Robinson GO, Routen TW, Sergot MJ (1987) Logic programming for large scale applications in law: a formalisation of supplementary benefit legislation. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 190–198
Bench-Capon TJM, Dunne PE, Leng PH (1992) A dialogue game for dialectical interaction with expert systems. In: Rault JC (ed) Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference on expert systems and their applications, vol 1. Nanterre, pp 105–113
Bench-Capon TJM, Prakken H, Visser W (2011) Argument schemes for two-phase democratic deliberation. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 21–30
Berman DH, Hafner CD (1988) Obstacles to the development of logic-based models of legal reasoning. In: Walter C (ed) Computer power and legal language: the use of computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, and expert systems in the law. Quorum Books, Westport CT, pp 183–214
Berman DH, Hafner CD (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, Amsterdam. ACM Press, New York, pp 50–59
Bex FJ (2011) Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: a formal hybrid theory. Springer, DordrechtCrossRef
Bex FJ, Prakken H (2004) Reinterpreting arguments in dialogue: an application to evidential reasoning. In: Gordon TF (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2004. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 119–129
Bex FJ, Prakken H (2010) Investigating stories in a formal dialogue game. In: Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A (eds) Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2008. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 73–84
Bex FJ, Verheij B (2011) Legal shifts in the process of proof. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 11–20
Bex FJ, Prakken H, Reed C, Walton DN (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artif Intell Law 11(2–3):125–165CrossRef
Bex FJ, Prakken H, Verheij B (2007) Formalising argumentative story-based analysis of evidence. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10
Bex FJ, van den Braak SW, van Oostendorp H, Prakken H, Verheij B, Vreeswijk GAW (2007) Sense-making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments? Law Prob Risk 6(1–4):145–168CrossRef
Bex FJ, van Koppen PJ, Prakken H, Verheij B (2010) A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence. Artif Intell Law 18(2):123–152CrossRef
Bex FJ, Bench-Capon TJM, Verheij B (2011) What makes a story plausible? The need for precedents. In: Atkinson K (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2011: the twenty fourth annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 23–32
Bing J (ed) (1984) Handbook of legal information retrieval. North-Holland, Amsterdam
Bing J (1987) Designing text retrieval systems for conceptual searching. In: ICAIL ’87: proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 43–51
Bing J (1987) Performance of legal text retrieval systems: the curse of Boole. Law Library J 79:187–202
Bing J, Harwold T (1977) Legal decisions and information systems. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo
Blair DC, Maron ME (1985) An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system. Commun ACM 28(3):289–299CrossRef
Boehm BW, Brown JR, Kaspar H, Lipow M, McLeod G, Merritt M (1978) Characteristics of software quality. TRW Software Series, New Holland
Boer A, van Engers TM (2011) An agent-based legal knowledge acquisition methodology for agile public administration. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 171–180
Boer A, van Engers TM, Winkels R (2003) Using ontologies for comparing and harmonizing legislation. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Pres, New York, pp 161–172
Brüninghaus S, Ashley KD (2003) Predicting outcomes of case-based legal arguments. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, NewYork, pp 233–242
Branting LK (1991a) Reasoning with portions of precedents. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 145–154
Branting LK (1991b) Building explanations from rules and structured cases. Int J Man Mach Stud 34(6):797–837CrossRef
Branting LK (1993a) A reduction-graph model of ratio decidendi. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 40–49
Branting LK (1993b) A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artif Intell Law 2(1):1–31CrossRef
Branting LK (2003) A reduction-graph model of precedent in legal analysis. Artif Intell 150(1–2):59–95MATHCrossRef
Breuker J, den Haan N (1991) Separating world and regulation knowledge: where is the logic In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 92–97
Breuker J, Hoekstra R (2004) Epistemology and ontology in core ontologies: FOLaw and LRICore, two core ontologies for law. In: Proceedings of EKAW workshop on core ontologies. CEUR
Bylander T, Chandrasekaran B (1987) Generic tasks for knowledge-based reasoning: the “right” level of abstraction for knowledge acquisition. Int J Man Mach Stud 26(2):231–243CrossRef
Cartwright D, Atkinson K (2009) Using computational argumentation to support e-participation. IEEE Intell Syst 24(5):42–52CrossRef
Casner AJ, Barton LW (1964) Cases and text on property. Little Brown, Boston
Chandrasekaran B (1986) Generic tasks in knowledge-based reasoning: high-level building blocks for expert system design. IEEE Exp 1(3):23–30CrossRef
Chisholm R (1963) Contrary-to-duty imperative and deontic logic. Analysis 24(2):33–36CrossRef
Chorley A, Bench-Capon TJM (2005) AGATHA: using heuristic search to automate the construction of case law theories. Artif Intell Law 13(1):9–51CrossRef
Clancey W (1981) The epistemology of a rule-based expert system: a framework for explanation. Technical Report STAN-CS-81-896, Stanford University, Department of Computer Science
Cross R (1979) Precedent in English Law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Conrad JG, Dabney DP (2001) A cognitive approach to judicial opinion structure: applying domain expertise to component analysis. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–11
Conrad JG, Schilder F (2007) Opinion mining in legal blogs. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 231–236
Conrad JG, Leidner JL, Schilder F, Kondadadi R (2009) Query-based opinion summarization for legal blog entries. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 167–176
Dayal S, Johnson P (2000) A web-based revolution in Australian public administration. In: Proceedings of law via the internet (reprinted in J Inform Law Technol 1)
de Waard A, Kircz J (2008) Modeling scientific research articles—shifting perspectives and persistent issues. In: Proceedings of ELPUB 2008 international conference on electronic publishing. Toronto, Canada. ELPUB Digital Library, pp 234–245
Duda R, Gasching J, Hart P (1979) Model design in the PROSPECTOR consultant system for mineral exploration. In: Michie D (ed) Expert systems in the micro-electronic age. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 153–167
Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–357MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
Farley AM, Freeman K (1995) Burden of proof in legal argumentation. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 156–164
Farzindar A, Guy L (2004) LetSum, an automatic legal text summarizing system. In: Lodder A, Loui R, Muntjewerff A (eds) Proceedings of the seventeenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems, Jurix 2004. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 11–18
Finkelstein MO, Levin B (2003) On the probative value of evidence from a screening search. Jurimetrics 43:265–90
Francesconi E, Peruginelli G (2008) Integrated access to legal literature through automated semantic classification. Artif Intell Law 17(1):31–49CrossRef
Freeman JB (1991) Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: a theory of argument structure. Foris Publications, BerlinCrossRef
Freeman K (1993) Towards formalizing dialectical argumentation. Phd thesis, University of Oregon
Freeman K, Farley AM (1996) A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):163–197CrossRef
Galgani F, Hoffman A (2010) LEXA: towards automatic legal citation classification. In: Proceedings of the twenty-third australian joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 445–454
Garey MR, Johnson DS (1979) Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman, New YorkMATH
Goodhart A (1930) Determining the ratio decidendi of a case. Yale Law J 40(2):161–183CrossRef
Gordon TF (1987) Oblog-2: a hybrid knowledge representation system for defeasible reasoning. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 231–239
Gordon TF (1993) The pleadings game; an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Ph.d., Technical University of Darmstadt
Gordon TF (1993) The pleadings game: formalizing procedural justice. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 10–19
Gordon TF (1995) The pleadings game. an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Gordon TF, Karacapilidis N (1997) The Zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 10–18
Gordon TF, Walton DN (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (ed) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–260CrossRef
Governatori G (1996) Labelling ideality and subideality. In: Gabbay DM, Ohlbach HJ (eds) Practical reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp 291–304CrossRef
Governatori G (2005) Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int J Cooper Inform Syst 14(2–3):181–216CrossRef
Governatori G, Olivieri F, Scannapieco S, Cristani M (2010) Superiority based revision of defeasible theories. In: Dean M, Hall J, Rotolo A, Tabet S (eds) RuleML. Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, pp 104–118
Grabmair M, Ashley KD (2011) Facilitating case comparison using value judgments and intermediate legal concepts. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 50–59
Greenwood K, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2003) Towards a computational account of persuasion in law. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 22–31
Gruber TR (1995) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int J Human Comput Stud 43(5–6):907–928CrossRef
Hachey B, Grover C (2005) Automatic legal text summarisation: experiments with summary structuring. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 75–84
Hafner CD (1987) Conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 35–42
Hafner CD, Berman DH (2002) The role of context in case-based legal reasoning: teleological, temporal, and procedural. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):19–64CrossRef
Hage J (1993) Monological reason-based logic: a low-level integration of rule-based reasoning and case-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 30–39
Hage J (1995) Teleological reasoning in reason-based logic. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 11–32
Hage J (1997) Reasoning with rules. An essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Hage J (2000) Goal-based theory evaluation. In: Breuker J, Leenes R, Winkels R (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2000. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 59–72
Hage J (2001) Formalizing legal coherence. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 22–31
Hage J (2005) Studies in legal Logic. Springer, Berlin
Hage J, Peczenik A (2000) Law, morals, and defeasibility. Ratio Juris 13(3):305–325CrossRef
Hage J, Peczenik A (2001) Legal internalism. In: Chiassoni P (ed) The legal ought. Proceedings of the IVR mid-term congress. Genoa, pp 141–170
Hage J, Verheij B (1994) Reason-based logic: a logic for reasoning with rules and reasons. Inform Commun Technol Law 3(2–3):171–209CrossRef
Hage J, Span G, Lodder AR (1992) A dialogical model of legal reasoning. In: Grutters C et al (eds) Legal knowledge-based systems: Jurix 92. Koninklijjke Vermade, Lelystad, pp 135–145
Hage J, Leenes RE, Lodder AR (1993) Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artif Intell Law 2(2):113–166CrossRef
Hall J, Zeleznikow J (2001) Acknowledging insufficiency in the evaluation of legal knowledge-based systems: strategies towards a broad based evaluation model. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 147–50
Hammond P (1983) Representation of DHSS regulations as a logic program. Department of Computing: Research report DoC, Imperial College
Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Hepler AR, Dawid AP, Leucari V (2007) Object-oriented graphical representations of complex patterns of evidence. Law Prob Risk 6(1–4):275–293CrossRef
Herrestad H (1991) Norms and formalization. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 175–184
Holyoak KJ, Thagard P (1989) Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cogn Sci 13(3):295–355CrossRef
Horty JF (2011) Reasons and precedent. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 41–50
Hume D (1739) A treatise on human nature. Available as: A Treatise of human nature, edited by Selby-Bigge LA, 2nd edn. (revised by Nidditch PH, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975)
Hunter D (1999) Out of their minds: legal theory in neural networks. Artif Intell Law 7(2–3):129–151CrossRef
Jackson P, Al-Kofahi K (2011) Human expertise and artificial intelligence in legal search. In: Geist A, Brunschwig CR, Lachmeyer F, Schefbeck G (eds) Strukturierung der Juristischen Semantik—Structuring Legal Semantics. Editions Weblaw, Bern, pp 417–427
Jackson P, Al-Kofahi K, Tyrrell A, Vachher A (2003) Information extraction from case law and retrieval of prior cases. Artif Intell 150(1–2):239–290CrossRef
Jakobovits H, Vermeir D (1999) Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 53–62
Johnson P, Mead D (1991) Legislative knowledge base systems for public administration: some practical issues. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, New York, pp 108–117
Juzgado NJ, Moran JL (1998) Common framework for the evaluation process of KBS and conventional software. Knowl Based Syst 1(2):145–159
Kadane JB, Schum DA (1996) A probabilistic analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti evidence. Wiley, New York
Karacapilidis NI, Papadias D (2001) Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Inform Syst 26(4):259–277MATHCrossRef
Karousos N, Papaloukas S, Kostaras N, Xenos MN, Tzagarakis M, Karacapilidis NI (2010) Usability evaluation of web-based collaboration support systems: the case of CoPe_it! In: Proceedings of the third world summit on the knowledge society, volume 111 of communications in computer and information science. Springer, Berlin, pp 248–258
Karpf J (1989) Quality assurance of legal expert systems. In: Pre-proceedings of the third international conference on Logica, Informatica, Diritto, CNR, Florence, pp 411–440
Keppens J (2011) On extracting arguments from Bayesian network representations of evidential reasoning. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 141–150
Keppens J, Schafer B (2006) Knowledge based crime scenario modelling. Exp Syst Appl 30(2):203–222CrossRef
Keppens J, Shen Q, Price C (2011) Compositional Bayesian modelling for computation of evidence collection strategies. Appl Intell 35(1):134–161CrossRef
Kirschner PA, Buckingham S, Simon J, Carr CS (eds) (2003) Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Springer, Berlin
Kogan S, Levin D, Routledge BR, Sagi JS, Smith NA (2009) Predicting risk from financial reports with regression. In: Proceedings of the human language technologies: the annual conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics, association for computational linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, pp 272–280
Kowalski RA, Toni F (1996) Abstract argumentation. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):275–296CrossRef
Lauritsen M (2005) Intelligent tools for managing factual arguments. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, New York, pp 95–104
Leenes RE (2001) Burden of proof in dialogue games and Dutch civil procedure. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 109–118
Leidner JL, Schilder F (2010) Hunting for the black swan: risk mining from text. In: Proceedings of the association for computational linguistics (ACL), association for computational linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, pp 54–59
Leith P (1982) ELI: an expert legislative consultant. In: Proceedings of the IEE conference on man/machine systems UMIST Conference Publication 212
Levi EH (1949) An introduction to legal reasoning. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Lloyd JW (1987) Foundations of logic programming, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRef
Lodder AR (1999) DiaLaw. On legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation. Law and philosophy library. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Lodder AR, Herczog A (1995) DiaLaw a dialogical framework for modeling legal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 146–155
Lorenzen P, Lorenz K (1978) Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, DarmstadtMATH
Loui RP, Norman J (1995) Rationales and argument moves. Artif Intell Law 3(3):159–189CrossRef
Loui RP, Norman J, Olson J, Merrill A (1993) A design for reasoning with policies, precedents and rationales. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 202–211
Loui RP, Norman J, Altepeter J, Pinkard D, Craven D, Linsday J, Foltz MA (1997) Progress on room 5: a testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 207–214
Luehrs R, Malsch T, Voss K (2001) Internet, discourses and democracy. In: New frontiers in artificial intelligence, LNCS 2253. Springer, Berlin, pp 67–74
Macintosh A, Gordon TF, Renton A (2009) Providing argument support for e-participation. J Inform Technol Politics 6(1):43–59CrossRef
Mackaay E, Robillard P (1974) Predicting judicial decisions: the nearest neighbour rule and visual representation of case patterns. Datenverarbeitung im Recht 3(3–4):302–331
Manning CD, Raghavan P, Schtze H (eds) (2008) Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATH
McCarty LT (1983) Permissions and obligations. In: Proceedings of the eighth international joint conference on artificial intelligence. William Kaufmann, MA, pp 287–294
McCarty LT (1984) Intelligent legal information systems: problems and prospects. In: Campbell C (ed) Data processing and the law. Sweet and Maxwell, London, pp 125–151
McCarty LT (1989) A language for legal discourse I: basic features. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 180–189
McCarty LT (1991) Invited address: on the role of prototypes in appellate legal argument. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 185–190
McCarty LT (1995) An implementation of Eisner v. Macomber. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 276–286
McCarty LT, Sridharan NS (1981) The Representation of an Evolving System of Legal Concepts: II. Prototypes and Deformations. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, William Kaufmann, MA, pp. 246–253
Mochales R, Moens M-F (2009) Argumentation mining: the detection, classification and structure of arguments in text. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp. 98–107
Mochales R, Moens M-F (2011) Argumentation mining. Artif Intell Law 19(1):1–22CrossRef
Modgil S, Bench-Capon TJM (2011) Metalevel argumentation. J Logic Comput 21(6):959–1003
Modgil S, Prakken H (2011) Revisiting preferences and argumentation. In: Proceedings of the twenty-second international joint conference on artificial intelligence. IJCAI/AAAI, pp 1021–1026
Moens M-F, Uyttendaele C, Dumortier J (1997) Abstracting of legal cases: the SALOMON experience. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 114–122
Moulin B, Irandoust H, Bélanger M, Desbordes G (2002) Explanation and argumentation capabilities: towards the creation of more persuasive agents. Artif Intell Rev 17(3):169–222MATHCrossRef
Nilsson NJ (1982) Principles of artificial intelligence. Springer, OxfordMATH
O’Keefe RM, O’Leary DE (1993) Expert system verification and validation: a survey and tutorial. Artif Intell Rev 7(1):3–42CrossRef
Palmirani M, Governatori G, Contissa G (2011) Modelling temporal legal rules. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 131–135
Pang B, Lee L (2008) Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found Trends Inform Retr 2(1–2):1–135CrossRef
Paulk MC, Weber CV, Curtis B, Chrissis MB (1995) Capability maturity model for software. Addison-Wesley, Boston
Peczenik A (2008) On law and reason, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin
Peczenik A, Hage J (2000) Legal knowledge about what? Ratio Juris 13(3):325–345
Pennington N, Hastie R (1993) The story model for juror decision making. In: Hastie R (ed) Inside the Juror: the psychology of juror decision making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 192–221CrossRef
Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame
Philipps L (1999) Artificial morality and artificial law. Artif Intell Law 7(2):115–128CrossRef
Philipps L, Sartor G (1999) Introduction: from legal theories to neural networks and fuzzy reasoning. Artif Intell Law 7(2–3):51–63
Pierce CS (1931) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press, Harvard
Prakken H (1993) A logical framework for modelling legal argument. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 192–201
Prakken H (1995) From logic to dialectics in legal argument. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 165–74
Prakken H (2000) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. In: Beuker J, Leenes R, Winkels R (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems: Jurix 2000. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 49–57
Prakken H (2001) Modelling defeasibility in law: logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae 48(2–3):253–271MathSciNetMATH
Prakken H (2001) Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, 119–128
Prakken H (2002) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):111–133
Prakken H (2005) A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 85–94
Prakken H (2008) A formal model of adjudication dialogues. Artif Intell Law 16(3):305–328CrossRef
Prakken H (2010) An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Arg Comput 1(2):93–124CrossRef
Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting argument in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):331–368CrossRef
Prakken H, Sartor G (1997) Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J Appl Non Class Logics 7(1):25–75MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
Prakken H, Sartor G (1997) Reasoning with precedents in a dialogue game. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–9
Prakken H, Sartor G (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif Intell Law 6(2–4):231–287CrossRef
Prakken H, Sartor G (2006) Presumptions and burdens of proof. In: van Engers TM (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems: JURIX 2006: the nineteenth annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 21–30
Prakken H, Sartor G (2007) Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 176–185
Prakken H, Sartor G (2008) More on presumptions and burdens of proof. In: Francesconi E, Sartor G, Tiscorina D (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2008: the twenty-first annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 21–30
Prakken H, Sartor G (2009) A logical analysis of burdens of proof. Legal evidence and burden of proof. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, Verheij B (eds) Legal evidence and burden of proof: statistics, stories, logic. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 223–253
Prakken H, Sartor G (2011) On modelling burdens and standards of proof in structured argumentation. In: Atkinson K (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems (Jurix 2011). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 83–92
Prakken H, Reed C, Walton DN (2004) Argumentation schemes and burden of proof. In: Proceedings of the fourth workshop on computational models of natural argument. ECAI, Valencia, pp 81–86
Prakken H, Reed C, Walton DN (2005) Dialogues about the burden of proof. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 15–124
Price SL, Nielsen ML, Delcambre LML, Vedsted P, Steinhauer J (2009) Using semantic components to search for domain-specfic documents: an evaluation from the system perspective. Inform Syst 34(8):724–752CrossRef
Reed C, Rowe G (2004) Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int J AI Tools 13(4):961–980CrossRef
Rescher N (1977) Dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. State University of New York Press, Albany
Rich E, Knight K (1991) Artificial intelligence, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New York
Rissland EL (1983) Examples in legal reasoning: legal hypotheticals. In: Proceedings of the eighth international joint conference on artificial intelligence. William Kaufman, MA, pp 90–93
Rissland EL (2009) Black swans, gray cygnets and other rare birds. In: Case-based reasoning research and development, eighth international conference on case-based reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp 6–13
Rissland EL, Ashley KD (1987) A case-based system for trade secrets law. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 60–66
Rissland EL, Ashley KD (2002) A note on dimensions and factors. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):65–77CrossRef
Rissland EL, Collins RT (1986) The law as learning system. In: Proceedings eighth annual cognitive science society conference. Amherst, MA, pp 500–513
Rissland EL, Daniels JJ (1995) A hybrid CBR-IR approach to legal information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 52–61
Rissland EL, Friedman MT(1995) Detecting change in legal concepts. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 127–136
Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1989) Interpreting statutory predicates. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 46–53
Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1989) Combining case-based and rule-based reasoning: a heuristic approach. In: Proceedings of eleventh international joint conference on artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, CA, pp 524–530
Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1991) CABARET: statutory interpretation on a hybrid architecture. Int J Man Mach Stud 34(6):39–887
Rissland EL, Skalak DB, Friedman MT (1993) BankXX: a program to generate argument through case-base search. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 117–124
Rissland EL, Skalak DB, Friedman MT (1996) BankXX: supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval. Artif Intell Law 4(1):1–71CrossRef
Rissland EL, Skalak DB, Friedman MT (1997) Evaluating a legal argument program: the BankXX experiments. Artif Intell Law 5(1–2):1–74CrossRef
Rissland EL, Ashley KD, Branting LK (2005) Case-based reasoning and law. Knowl Eng Rev 20(3):293–298CrossRef
Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169CrossRef
Roth B, Verheij B (2004) Dialectical arguments and case comparison. In: Gordon T (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2004: the seventeenth annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 99–108
Saint-Dizier P (2012) Processing natural language arguments with the TextCoop platform. J Arg Comput 3(1):49–82
Salton GM, Wong AKC, Yang C-S (1975) A vector space model for automatic indexing. Commun ACM 18(11):613–620MATHCrossRef
Sartor G (1993) A simple computational model for nonmonotonic and adversarial legal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–9
Sartor G (2002) Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):95–112CrossRef
Sartor G (2006) Fundamental legal concepts: a formal and teleological characterisation. Artif Intell Law 14(1–2):101–142CrossRef
Sartor G (2010) Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality. Artif Intell Law 18(2):175–215CrossRef
Schank RC, Abelson RP (1997) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey
Scheuer O, Loll F, Pinkwart N, McLaren BM (2010) Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Int J Comput Supp Collab Learn 5(1):43–102CrossRef
Schlobohm DA, McCarty LT (1989) EPS II: estate planning with prototypes. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10
Schweighofer E (1999) Legal knowledge representation, automatic text analysis in public international and European law. Kluwer, The Hague
Schweighofer E (2006) Computing law: from legal information systems to dynamic legal electronic commentaries. In: Sjberg CM, Wahlgren P (eds) Festskrift till Peter Seipel. Norsteds Juridik AB, Stockholm, pp 569–588
Schweighofer E, Winiwarter W (1993) Legal expert system KONTERM—automatic representation of document structure and contents. In: Database and expert systems applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 486–497
Schweighofer E, Rauber A, Dittenbach M (2001) Automatic text representation, classification and labeling in European law. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 78–87
Sergot MJ (1982) Prospects for representing the law as logic programs. In: Clark KL, Tarnlund SA (eds) Logic programming. Academic Press, London, pp 33–42
Sergot MJ, Sadri F, Kowalski RA, Kriwaczek F, Hammond P, Cory HT (1986) The British nationality act as a logic program. Commun ACM 29(5):370–386CrossRef
Shortliffe EH (1976) Computer-based medical consultations, MYCIN. Artificial intelligence series. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Skalak DB, Rissland EL (1991) Argument moves in a rule-guided domain. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–11
Skalak DB, Rissland EL (1992) Arguments and cases: an inevitable intertwining. Artif Intell Law 1(1):3–44CrossRef
Smith JC (1997) The use of lexicons in information retrieval in legal databases. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 78–87
Stamper R (1980) LEGOL: modelling legal rules by computer. In: Niblett B (ed) Computer science and law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 45–71
Surdeanu M, Nallapati R, Gregory G, Walker J, Manning CD (2011) Risk analysis for intellectual property litigation. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 231–236
Susskind R (1987) Expert systems in law: out of the research laboratory and into the marketplace. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on AI and Law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–8
Teufel S (1999) Argumentative Zoning: information extraction from scientific text. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh
Teufel S, Moens M (2002) Summarizing scientific articles—experiments with relevance and rhetorical status. Comput Linguist 28(4):409–445CrossRef
Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tyree A (1989) Expert systems in law. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Valente A, Breuker J (1995) ON-LINE: an architecture for modelling legal information. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 307–315
Van den Braak SW (2010) Sensemaking software for crime analysis. Doctoral dissertation Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University
Van de Ven S, Breuker J, Hoekstra R, Wortel L (2008) Automated legal assessment in OWL 2. In: Francesconi E, Sartor G, Tiscorina D (eds) Proceedings of Jurix 2008. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 170–175
Van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectic approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Van Gelder T (2003) Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument visualization. In: Kirschner PA, Shum SJB, Carr CS (eds) Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–115
Van Heijst G (1995) The role of ontologies in knowledge engineering. Ph.D. thesis, Social Science Informatics, University of Amsterdam
Verheij B (2005) Virtual arguments: on the design of argument assistants for lawyers and other arguers. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Verheij B, Bex FJ (2009) Accepting the truth of a story about the facts of a criminal case. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, Verheij B (eds) Legal evidence and proof: statistics, stories, logic. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 161–193
Vreeswijk G, Prakken H (2000) Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Proceedings of JELIA 2000. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–253
Wagenaar WA, Van Koppen PJ, Crombag HFM (1993) Anchored narratives: the psychology of criminal evidence. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire
Walker VR (2007) Visualizing the dynamics around the rule/evidence interface in legal reasoning. Law Prob Risk 6(1–4):5–22CrossRef
Walton DN (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
Walton DN (2006) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Walton DN, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
Wardeh M, Bench-Capon TJM, Coenen FP (2009) Padua: a protocol for argumentation dialogue using association rules. Artif Intell Law 17(3):183–215CrossRef
Weber RO, Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2005) Textual case-based reasoning. Knowl Eng Rev 20(3):255–260CrossRef
Wigmore JH (1913) The principles of judicial proof or the process of proof as given by logic, psychology, and general experience, and illustrated in judicial trials. Little, Brown and Company, Boston
Wyner AZ (2008) An ontology in OWL for legal case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Law 16(4):361–387CrossRef
Wyner AZ (2010) Towards annotating and extracting textual legal case elements. Informatica e Diritto 19(1–2):9–18
Wyner AZ, Peters W (2010) Lexical semantics and expert legal knowledge towards the identification of legal case factors. In: Winkels R (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems (Jurix 2010). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 127–136
Wyner AZ, Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson K (2007) Arguments, values and baseballs: representation of Popov v. Hayashi. In: Lodder A, Mommens L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems (Jurix 2007). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 151–160
Wyner AZ, Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson K (2011) Formalising argumentation about legal cases. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10
Yoshino H (1995) The systematization of legal meta-inference. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 266–275
Yoshino H (1997) On the logical foundations of compound predicate formulae for legal knowledge representation. Artif Intell Law 5(1–2):77–96CrossRef
Yoshino H (2011) The systematization of law in terms of the validity. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 121–25
Yoshino H, Kakuta T (1993) The knowledge representation of legal expert system LES-3.3 with legal metainference. In: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium of legal expert system association. LESA, Tokyo, pp 1–9
Metadata
Title
A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law
Authors
Trevor Bench-Capon
Michał Araszkiewicz
Kevin Ashley
Katie Atkinson
Floris Bex
Filipe Borges
Daniele Bourcier
Paul Bourgine
Jack G. Conrad
Enrico Francesconi
Thomas F. Gordon
Guido Governatori
Jochen L. Leidner
David D. Lewis
Ronald P. Loui
L. Thorne McCarty
Henry Prakken
Frank Schilder
Erich Schweighofer
Paul Thompson
Alex Tyrrell
Bart Verheij
Douglas N. Walton
Adam Z. Wyner
Publication date
01-09-2012
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Artificial Intelligence and Law / Issue 3/2012
Print ISSN: 0924-8463
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8382
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-012-9131-x

Premium Partner

    Image Credits