Isomorphism and argumentation
Abstract
As knowledge representation tools become more sophisticated, and computer systems increase in power and ubiquity, the prospects of building practical applications based on the representation of large amounts of legislation draw closer. In this paper we reflect on our experience with developing a knowledge representation language for legal rules and an inference engine for this language in the Estrella project, in order to reconsider the principles which should guide the representation of legislation. One common demand, based largely on software engineering considerations relating to maintenance, verification and validation, is that representations should be isomorphic to their sources. We explore this notion by representing a fragment of German Family Law using our tools. We show that there are several different ways of representing even this small and simple fragment of law in an isomorphic fashion. Moreover these differences matter, in terms of where the burden of proof is allocated, in terms of the explanations produced, and in terms of the operational procedures that are reflected.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A rule-based ADM system would undergo systematic changes by which amendments in law or court practice will be inserted as new rules in the software, provided that there is proper maintenance of the rule-based system.
“In contrast, a rule-based ADM system would undergo systematic changes by which amendments in law or court practice will be inserted as new rules in the software, provided that there is proper maintenance of the rule-based system (Bench-Capon and Gordon 2009, 12).”
From Administrative due process when using automated decision-making in public administration: some notes from a Finnish perspective (2021) · cites this paper as Bench-Capon and Gordon 2009, 12
A traditional knowledge-based system can be amended more or less quickly depending on how far-reaching the changes are, although it might still take weeks at best from the perspective of maintenance.
“A traditional knowledge-based system can therefore be amended more or less quickly depending on how far-reaching the changes are (although it might still take weeks at best from the perspective of maintenance).”
From Administrative due process when using automated decision-making in public administration: some notes from a Finnish perspective (2021) · cites this paper as Bench-Capon and Gordon 2009, 18-19
Cites
Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities
Prakken, H., & Giovanni Sartor, B. (1997) · Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics · doi:10.1080/11663081.1997.10510900 · Cited by 586 · see citing works
The British Nationality Act as a logic program
Sergot, M. J., Sadri, F., Kowalski, R. A., Kriwaczek, F., Hammond, P., & Cory, H. T. (1986) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/5689.5920 · Cited by 564 · see citing works
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof
Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. (2007) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.010 · Cited by 393 · see citing works
Self-citationIsomorphism and legal knowledge based systems
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & Coenen, F. P. (1992) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/bf00118479 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Self-citationBench-Capon, T. J. M., Robinson, G. O., Routen, T., & Sergot, M. J. (1987) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/41735.41757 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Self-citationDesign for acquisition: principles of knowledge-system design to facilitate knowledge acquisition
Gruber, T., & Cohen, P. R. (1987) · International Journal of Man-Machine Studies · doi:10.1016/s0020-7373(87)80088-3 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & Visser, P. R. S. (1997) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/261618.261646 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Self-citationvan Engers, T., Gerrits, R., Boekenoogen, M. R., Glassée, E., & Kordelaar, P. J. M. (2001) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/383535.383554 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Argument-based explanation of logic programs
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Lowes, D., & McEnery, T. (1991) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/0950-7051(91)90007-o · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Self-citationDefeasibility in Legal Reasoning
Giovanni Sartor, B. (1995) · Law and philosophy library · doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8531-6_4 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Constructing Legal Arguments with Rules in the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF)
Gordon, T. F. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_11 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Self-citationA principled approach to developing legal knowledge systems
van Kralingen, R. W., Visser, P. R. S., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & van den Herik, H. J. (1999) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0300 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-citationVisualizing Carneades argument graphs
Gordon, T. F. (2007) · Law Probability and Risk · doi:10.1093/lpr/mgm026 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-citationLegislative knowledge base systems for public administration
Johnson, P. D., & Mead, D. (1991) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/112646.112660 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Induction of defeasible logic theories in the legal domain
Johnston, B., & Governatori, G. (2003) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/1047788.1047834 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Valente, A., & Breuker, J. (1995) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/222092.222265 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Oblog-2: A hybrid knowledge representation system for defeasible reasoning
Gordon, T. F. (1987) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/41735.41761 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Self-citationIndian central civil service pension rules
Sergot, M. J., Kamble, A., & Bajaj, K. K. (1991) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/112646.112661 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Automated Legal Assessment in OWL 2
Saskia, V. D. V., Breuker, J., Hoekstra, R., & Wortel, L. (2008) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/978-1-58603-952-3-170 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
(2023) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/978-1-349-96073-6_9679 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Araszkiewicz, M., Ashley, K. D., Atkinson, K. M., Bex, F., Borges, F., Bourcier, D., Bourgine, P., Conrad, J. G., Francesconi, E., et al. (2012) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/s10506-012-9131-x · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Self-citationAre we done with business process compliance: state of the art and challenges ahead
Hashmi, M., Guido Governatori, A., Lam, H.-P., & Wynn, M. T. (2018) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-017-1142-1 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Data-centric and logic-based models for automated legal problem solving
Branting, L. K. (2017) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/s10506-017-9193-x · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Suksi, M. (2021) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/s10506-020-09269-x · Cited by 55 · see citing works
“…remains a difficult issue” (Bench-Capon and Coenen 1992, 67), where isomorphism is defined as correspondence between source documents and the representation of the information the documents contain as used in the system (Bench-Capon and Coenen 1992, 66; see also Bench-Capon and Gordon 2009, 11–12).”
BackgroundMethodThirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the first decade
Guido Governatori, A., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Bart Verheij, A., Araszkiewicz, M., Francesconi, E., & Grabmair, M. (2022) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/s10506-022-09329-4 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Self-citationThe winter, the summer and the summer dream of artificial intelligence in law
Francesconi, E. (2022) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/s10506-022-09309-8 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
An OWL ontology library representing judicial interpretations
Ceci, M., & Aldo Gangemi, A. (2016) · Semantic Web · doi:10.3233/sw-140146 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Semantic Web Regulatory Models: Why Ethics Matter
Casanovas, P. (2014) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-014-0170-y · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Modelling temporal legal rules
Palmirani, M., Guido Governatori, A., & Contissa, G. (2011) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/2018358.2018378 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Al-Abdulkarim, L., Atkinson, K. M., & Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2016) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/s10506-016-9190-5 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Self-citationKnowledge Acquisition from Sources of Law in Public Administration
Boer, A., & van Engers, T. (2010) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16438-5_4 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Traceability and Change in Legal Requirements Engineering
Boer, A., van Engers, T., & Winkels, R. G. F. (2010) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16524-5_6 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Temporal Dimensions in Rules Modelling
Palmirani, M., Guido Governatori, A., & Contissa, G. (2010) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-682-9-159 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Ontology Framework for Judgment Modelling
Ceci, M., & Palmirani, M. (2012) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35731-2_8 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
A MetaLex and Metadata Primer: Concepts, Use, and Implementation
Boer, A., & van Engers, T. (2011) · Law, governance and technology series · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1887-6_8 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Public Agility and Change in a Network Environment
van Engers, T., & Boer, A. (2011) · JeDEM - eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government · doi:10.29379/jedem.v3i1.51 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Legal Linked Data Ecosystems and the Rule of Law
Poblet, M., Casanovas, P., & Rodrı́guez-Doncel, V. (2019) · SpringerBriefs in law · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-13363-4_5 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Towards Pragmatic Argumentative Agents within a Fuzzy Description Logic Framework
Leţia, I. A., & Groza, A. P. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_13 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
A Criminal Domain Ontology for Modelling Legal Norms
Ghosh, M. E., Abdulrab, H., Naja, H., & Khalil, M. A. (2017) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70169-1_21 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Argument Diagramming and Diagnostic Reliability
Lynch, C. F., Ashley, K. D., Niels Pinkwart, C., & Aleven, V. (2009) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-082-7-106 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Modeling authority commitments in two search and seizure cases
Carey, M. (2011) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/2018358.2018384 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Indexing as an Ontological Support for Legal Reasoning
Schweighoferf, E. (2011) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-091-4.ch012 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Evaluating business process compliance management frameworks
Hashmi, M. (2015) · QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) · Cited by 2 · see citing works
National Report on Automation in Decision-Making in Public Administration in Slovakia
Jakab, R. (2024) · AUC IURIDICA · doi:10.14712/23366478.2024.28 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
McLachlan, S., Dube, K., Gallagher, T., & Simmonds, J. A. (2015) · IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI) · doi:10.1109/ichi.2015.31 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Public Administration Curriculum-Based Big Data Policy-Analytic Epistemology
Tetteh, E. N. A. (2019) · Advances in data mining and database management book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7432-3.ch024 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Public Administration Curriculum-Based Big Data Policy-Analytic Epistemology
Tetteh, E. N. A. (2021) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-3662-2.ch063 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
L'acte administratif algorithmique
Stepanov, A. (2026) · doi:10.70675/adc05be3za62ez4b4fz81e7zabf744e60dbf
BEng Individual Project Report
Kadis, A., & Toni, F. (2010)
- Authors
- Bench-Capon, T., & Gordon, T. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems (DE)
- ORCID
- Bench-Capon, Trevor
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2009-06-08
- Pages
- 11-20
- OpenAlex
- W2042280927
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 38.94
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (publishedVersion)
- Publikationsdatenbank der Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
- Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Sixth Framework Programme (IST-2004-027655)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
- Keywords
- isomorphism, legal argumentation, legal knowledge representation, legal norms, inference engine, German family law, burden of proof, explanation generation, legal reasoning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
