Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Book Review: Bram Roth, Case-based Reasoning in the Law: A Formal Theory of Reasoning by Case Comparison. Ph. D. Thesis, The University of Maastricht, 2003. 181pp.

Book Review: Bram Roth, Case-based Reasoning in the Law: A Formal Theory of Reasoning by Case... Artificial Intelligence and Law (2004) 12:227–229  Springer 2004 DOI 10.1007/s10506-004-3889-4 Book Review Bram Roth, Case-based Reasoning in the Law: A Formal Theory of Reasoning by Case Comparison. Ph. D. Thesis, The University of Maastricht, 2003. 181 pp. Modelling how legal cases are reasoned with has been a central concern of AI and Law since its inception. The key line of work originates in the US with the HYPO system of Edwina Rissland and Kevin Ashley, which developed into the CABARET system of Rissland and David Skalak and the CATO system of Ashley and Vincent Aleven, and is currently represented by the Issue-Based Prediction system of Ashley and Steffie Bruninghaus. Other important work from the US includes the work of Karl Branting, especially the GREBE system. In all of this work the emphasis has been on implemented systems. European work, which starts from a more rule and logic orientated perspective, has tended to address this topic by attempting to provide a logical reconstruction of the styles of reasoning exemplified by these systems. Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor have explicitly provided a logical model of reasoning with precedents, while Jaap Hage and Bart Verheij have worked on Reason Based Logic http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Artificial Intelligence and Law Springer Journals

Book Review: Bram Roth, Case-based Reasoning in the Law: A Formal Theory of Reasoning by Case Comparison. Ph. D. Thesis, The University of Maastricht, 2003. 181pp.

Bench-Capon, Trevor
Artificial Intelligence and Law , Volume 12 (3) – Nov 26, 2005
Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/book-review-bram-roth-case-based-reasoning-in-the-law-a-formal-theory-jYOohTPmOp

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by Springer
Subject
Computer Science; Artificial Intelligence (incl. Robotics); International IT and Media Law, Intellectual Property Law; Philosophy of Law; Legal Aspects of Computing; Information Storage and Retrieval
ISSN
0924-8463
eISSN
1572-8382
DOI
10.1007/s10506-004-3889-4
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence and Law (2004) 12:227–229  Springer 2004 DOI 10.1007/s10506-004-3889-4 Book Review Bram Roth, Case-based Reasoning in the Law: A Formal Theory of Reasoning by Case Comparison. Ph. D. Thesis, The University of Maastricht, 2003. 181 pp. Modelling how legal cases are reasoned with has been a central concern of AI and Law since its inception. The key line of work originates in the US with the HYPO system of Edwina Rissland and Kevin Ashley, which developed into the CABARET system of Rissland and David Skalak and the CATO system of Ashley and Vincent Aleven, and is currently represented by the Issue-Based Prediction system of Ashley and Steffie Bruninghaus. Other important work from the US includes the work of Karl Branting, especially the GREBE system. In all of this work the emphasis has been on implemented systems. European work, which starts from a more rule and logic orientated perspective, has tended to address this topic by attempting to provide a logical reconstruction of the styles of reasoning exemplified by these systems. Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor have explicitly provided a logical model of reasoning with precedents, while Jaap Hage and Bart Verheij have worked on Reason Based Logic

Journal

Artificial Intelligence and Law – Springer Journals

Published: Nov 26, 2005

There are no references for this article.