Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law - ICAIL '89 1989
DOI: 10.1145/74014.74037
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A language for legal Discourse I. basic features

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
46
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 104 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
(2 reference statements)
0
46
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We need to consider the possibility of reifying normative modalities, positions, relations, propositions (on reification of normative ideas, see for instance McCarty 1989 andHage 1997). Reification should allows us to individualise instances of legal concepts: not only can s we ay say that it is obligatory that j does A, but we can also speak of an obligation of j to do A, which is an object having a particular source, particular warranties, and particular limitations, which can distinguished from other obligations of j (possibly having the same content A), can be transferred to others, and so on.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We need to consider the possibility of reifying normative modalities, positions, relations, propositions (on reification of normative ideas, see for instance McCarty 1989 andHage 1997). Reification should allows us to individualise instances of legal concepts: not only can s we ay say that it is obligatory that j does A, but we can also speak of an obligation of j to do A, which is an object having a particular source, particular warranties, and particular limitations, which can distinguished from other obligations of j (possibly having the same content A), can be transferred to others, and so on.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is a number of works that consider the theoretical issues related to the construction of legal ontologies [34,48,16]. In particular the framework presented in Kralingen [30] is a frame-based system that classifies the legal facts.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the complexity of this new and heterogeneous field, Valente (2005: 72) proposed a classification of the set of types and roles of ontologies in order to account for the legal 5 From this point of view, law is a dynamic, normative field and its conceptualization would necessarily include those aspects, together with the representation of world knowledge or common-sense knowledge (see, for example, Lame (2002) and Breuker and Hoekstra (2004) (2) have a reasoning and a problem solving engine, such as the ontology CLIME for maritime law (Boer, Hoekstra & Winkels 2001) or Argument Developer, which works with different types of legal data bases (Zeleznikow & Stranieri, 2001); (4) understand a domain, such as those which are more generally applied in law, e.g. the functional ontologies of law (based on Ontolingua) by Breuker (1994, 1999), and those of language of legal discourse by McCarty (1989) Ontology) and several domain-specific terminological modules or satellite ontologies).…”
Section: Ontology Building and Legal Ontologiesmentioning
confidence: 99%