AI and Law Journal - Special Issue

A History of AI and Law in 50 papers: ICAIL at 25

2012 sees the 25^th 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