Legal linguistic templates and the tension between legal knowledge representation and reasoning.

automated reasoning; domain specific language; formal representation; knowledge validation; legal informatics; reverse translations; Artificial Intelligence

Abstract :

[en] There is an inherent tension between knowledge representation and reasoning. For an optimal representation and validation, an expressive language should be used. For an optimal automated reasoning, a simple one is preferred. Which language should we choose for our legal knowledge representation if our goal is to apply automated legal reasoning? In this paper, we investigate the properties and requirements of each of these two applications. We suggest that by using Legal Linguistic Templates, one can solve the above tension in some practical situations.

Disciplines :

Computer science

Author, co-author :

LIBAL, Tomer ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine (FSTM) > Department of Computer Science (DCS)

External co-authors :

Language :

English

Title :

Legal linguistic templates and the tension between legal knowledge representation and reasoning.

Publication date :

2023

Journal title :

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence

eISSN :

2624-8212

Publisher :

Frontiers Media S.A., Switzerland

Volume :

Pages :

1136263

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Additional URL :

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2023.1136263/full

Funding text :

This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR), grant reference PoC20/15262509/icomplai. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR), grant reference PoC20/15262509/icomplai. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Available on ORBilu :

since 18 January 2024

Statistics

Number of views

8 (0 by Unilu)

Number of downloads

5 (0 by Unilu)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

WoS citations^™

Bibliography

Abidi A. Libal T. (2022). “A validation process for a legal formalization method,” in Workshop on Methodologies for Translating Legal Norms into Formal Representations (Saarbrücken).
Alchourrón C. E. Makinson D. (1981). “Hierarchies of regulations and their logic,” in New Studies in Deontic Logic: Norms, Actions, and the Foundations of Ethics, 125–148. 10.1007/978-94-009-8484-4_5
Aletras N. Tsarapatsanis D. Preoţiuc-Pietro D. Lampos V. (2016). Predicting judicial decisions of the European court of human rights: a natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2:e93. 10.7717/peerj-cs.93
Allen L. E. Engholm C. R. (1979). The need for clear structure in plain language legal drafting. U. Mich. JL Reform 13:455.
Bartolini C. Lenzini G. Santos C. (2018). “An agile approach to validate a formal representation of the GDPR,” in JSAI-isAI Workshops. p. 160–176.
Barwise J. (1977). “An introduction to first-order logic,” in Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 90 (Elsevier), 5–46. 10.1016/S0049-237X(08)71097-8
Benzmüller C. (2019). Universal (meta-) logical reasoning: recent successes. Sci. Comput. Prog. 172, 48–62. 10.1016/j.scico.2018.10.00831016212
Burley A.-M. Mattli W. (1993). Europe before the court: a political theory of legal integration. Int. Organ. 47, 41–76. 10.1017/S0020818300004707
Church A. (1940). A formulation of the simple theory of types. J. Symbol. Logic 5, 56–68. 10.2307/2266170
Clark K. L. (1978). “Negation as failure,” in Logic and Data Bases (Springer), 293–322. 10.1007/978-1-4684-3384-5_11
Colmerauer A. (1990). “An introduction to prolog III,” in Computational Logic (Springer), 37–79. 10.1007/978-3-642-76274-1_2
Connell N. (1987). Expert systems in accountancy: a review of some recent applications. Account. Bus. Res. 17, 221–233. 10.1080/00014788.1987.9729802
Dastani M. Dong H. van der Torre L. (2020). “Logic and argumentation,” in Third International Conference, CLAR 2020, Hangzhou, China, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 12061 (Springer).
Durkin J. (1996). Expert systems: a view of the field. IEEE Intell. Syst. 11, 56–63. 10.1109/64.491282
Edelman L. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: organizational mediation of civil rights law. Am. J. Sociol. 97, 1531–1576. 10.1086/229939
Francesconi C. Borges G. Sorge C. (2022). “Legal knowledge and information systems,” in JURIX 2022: The Thirty-fifth Annual Conference, Saarbrücken, Germany, 14-16 December 2022. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 362 (IOS Press).
Fungwacharakorn W. Tsushima K. Satoh K. (2021). Resolving counterintuitive consequences in law using legal debugging. Artif. Intell. Law 29, 541–557. 10.1007/s10506-021-09283-7
Hashmi M. Governatori G. (2018). Norms modeling constructs of business process compliance management frameworks: a conceptual evaluation. Artif. Intell. Law 26, 251–305. 10.1007/s10506-017-9215-8
Heimtz F. Milano M. O'Sulivan B. (2020). “Trustworthy AI - Integrating Learning, Optimization and Reasoning,” in First International Workshop, TAILOR 2020, Virtual Event, September 4-5, 2020, Revised Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 12641 (Springer). 10.1007/978-3-030-73959-1
Hughes J. (1995). “The design of a pretty-printing library,” in International School on Advanced Functional Programming eds, Jeuring J Meijer E: (Båstad: Springer), 53–96. 10.1007/3-540-59451-5_3
Huttner L. Merigoux D. (2022). Catala: moving towards the future of legal expert systems. Artif. Intell. Law 1–24. 10.1007/s10506-022-09328-5
Kornilov V. Glushan V. Lozovoy A. Y. (2021). “Metric for evaluation of machine translation quality on the bases of edit distances and reverse translation,” in 2021 IEEE 15th International Conference on Application of Information and Communication Technologies (AICT), 1–6. 10.1109/AICT52784.2021.9620304
Kowalski R. (2020). “Logical English,” in Proceedings of Logic and Practice of Programming (LPOP).
Kowalski R. Datoo A. (2022). Logical English meets legal English for swaps and derivatives. Artif. Intell. Law 30, 163–197. 10.1007/s10506-021-09295-3
Langley C. Spenser C. (2007). Visirule Tutorial.
Leith P. (1986). Fundamental errors in legal logic programming. Comput. J. 29, 545–552. 10.1093/comjnl/29.6.545
Libal T. Pascucci M. (2019). Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL 2019, (Montreal, QC, Canada), p. 63–72. 10.1145/3322640.33267
McGraw K. L. Harbison-Briggs K. (1989). Knowledge Acquisition: Principles and Guidelines. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Mernik M. Heering J. Sloane A. M. (2005). When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM Comput. Surveys 37, 316–344. 10.1145/1118890.1118892
Meyer B. (2008). Seven principles of software testing. Computer 41, 99–101. 10.1109/MC.2008.306
Mills M. (2016). Artificial Intelligence in Law: The State of Play 2016. Thomson Reuters Legal executive Institute.
Mockus M. Palmirani M. (2017). “Legal ontology for open government data mashups,” in 2017 Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM) (Krems), 113–124. 10.1109/CeDEM.2017.25
Morris J. (2021). “Constraint answer set programming as a tool to improve legislative drafting: a rules as code experiment,” in Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (São Paulo Brazil), 262–263. 10.1145/3462757.3466084
Nipkow T. Wenzel M. Paulson L. C. (2002). Isabelle/HOL: A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Springer. 10.1007/3-540-45949-9
Novotná T. Libal T. (2022). “An evaluation of methodologies for legal formalization,” in International Workshop on Explainable, Transparent Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (Springer), 189–203. 10.1007/978-3-031-15565-9_12
Novotná T. Libal T. (2023). “Designing an experiment for comparing user interfaces for legal formalization,” in Presented at the International Workshop on Programming Languages and the Law on the 15 January.
Nute D. (2012). Defeasible Deontic Logic, Vol. 263. Springer Science & Business Media.
Palmirani M. Governatori G. (2018). “Modelling legal knowledge for GDPR compliance checking,” in JURIX, Vol. 313 (Groningen), 101–110.
Pierce B. C. (2002). Types and Programming Languages. MIT Press.
Prakken H. Sartor G. (2015). Law and logic: a review from an argumentation perspective. Artif. Intell. 227, 214–245. 10.1016/j.artint.2015.06.005
Robaldo L. Bartolini C. Palmirani M. Rossi A. Martoni M. Lenzini G. (2020). Formalizing GDPR provisions in reified i/o logic: the Dapreco knowledge base. J. Logic Lang. Inform. 29, 401–449. 10.1007/s10849-019-09309-z
Routen T. Bench-Capon T. (1991). Hierarchical formalizations. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 35, 69–93. 10.1016/S0020-7373(07)80008-3
Satoh K. Takahashi K. Kawasaki T. (2021). “Interactive system for arranging issues based on proleg in civil litigation,” in Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (São Paulo Brazil), 273–274. 10.1145/3462757.3466096
Schauer F. (2013). On the open texture of law. Grazer Philos. Stud. 87, 197–215. 10.1163/9789401210119_013
Sergot M. J. Sadri F. Kowalski R. A. Kriwaczek F. Hammond P. Cory H. T. (1986). The British nationality act as a logic program. Commun. ACM 29, 370–386. 10.1145/5689.5920
Soavi M. Zeni N. Mylopoulos J. Mich L. (2022). From legal contracts to formal specifications: a systematic literature review. SN Comput. Sci. 3, 1–25. 10.1007/s42979-022-01228-428038906
Steen A. Benzmüller C. (2018). “The higher-order prover leo-III,” in International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (Oxford: Springer), 108–116. 10.1007/978-3-319-94205-6_8
Sulea O.-M. Zampieri M. Malmasi S. Vela M. Dinu L. P. Van Genabith J. (2017). Exploring the use of text classification in the legal domain. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09306.
Waterman D. A. (1985). A Guide to Expert Systems. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
Weaver D. A. Bimber B. (2008). Finding news stories: a comparison of searches using Lexisnexis and Google news. J. Mass Commun. Q. 85, 515–530. 10.1177/107769900808500303
Zheng H. Xiong M. Verheij B. (2018). “Checking the validity of rule-based arguments grounded in cases: a computational approach,” in JURIX (Groningen), 220–224.