AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems. Models and Ethical Challenges for Legal Systems, Legal Language and Legal Ontologies, Argumentation and Software Agents

The inspiring idea of this workshop series, Artificial Intelligence Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems (AICOL), is to develop models of legal knowledge concerning organization, structure, and content in order to promote mutual understanding and communication between different systems and cultures. Complexity and complex systems describe recent developments in AI and law, legal theory, argumentation, the Semantic Web, and multi-agent systems. Multisystem and multilingual ontologies provide an important opportunity to integrate different trends of research in AI and law, including comparative legal studies. Complexity theory, graph theory, game theory, and any other contributions from the mathematical disciplines can help both to formalize the dynamics of legal systems and to capture relations among norms. Cognitive science can help the modeling of legal ontology by taking into account not only the formal features of law but also social behaviour, psychology, and cultural factors. This book is thus meant to support scholars in different areas of science in sharing knowledge and methodological approaches. This volume collects the contributions to the workshop's third edition, which took place as part of the 25th IVR congress of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, held in Frankfurt, Germany, in August 2011. This volume comprises six main parts devoted to the each of the six topics addressed in the workshop, namely: models for the legal system ethics and the regulation of ICT, legal knowledge management, legal information for open access, software agent systems in the legal domain, as well as legal language and legal ontology

[1]  Aldo Gangemi,et al.  Design Patterns for Legal Ontology Constructions , 2007, LOAIT.

[2]  Carol Parker.  Institutional Repositories and the Principle of Open Access: Changing the Way We Think About Legal Scholarship. 37 New Mexico L. Rev. 431-77 (2007). , 2006 .

[3]  Fabio Vitali,et al.  MetaLex XML and the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format , 2008, Computable Models of the Law, Languages, Dialogues, Games, Ontologies.

[4]  Graham Greenleaf.  'Tabula Rasa': Ten Reasons Why Australian Privacy Law Does Not Exist , 2001 .

[5]  Giovanni Sartor.  Legal concepts as inferential nodes and ontological categories , 2009 .

[6]  James A. Hendler,et al.  Web science: an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the web , 2008, CACM.

[7]  Graham Greenleaf,et al.  The Hong Kong Legal Information Institute (HKLII): Its Role in Free Access to Global Law Via the Internet , 2004 .

[8]  Antoni Roig.  Privacy and Social Networks: From Data Protection to Pervasive Computing , 2010, AAAI Spring Symposium: Intelligent Information Privacy Management.

[9]  Graham Greenleaf.  'Ip, phone home': the uneasy relationship between copyright and privacy, illustrated in the laws of Hong Kong and Australia , 2002 .

[10]  Graham Greenleaf,et al.  The AustLII Papers - New Directions in Law via the Internet , 1997, J. Inf. Law Technol..

[11]  Kevin D. Ashley.  Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological, and hypothetical legal reasoning , 2009, ICAIL.

[12]  Gloria Origgi,et al.  LiquidPublications and its technical and legal challenges , 2010 .

[13]  Eustache Mêgnigbêto.  Information policy: Content and challenges for an effective knowledge society , 2010 .

[14]  Dan Hunter,et al.  Cyberspace as Place, and the Tragedy of the Digital Anticommons , 2002 .

[15]  Giuseppe Contissa,et al.  Fill the Gap in the Legal Knowledge Modelling , 2009, RuleML.

[16]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law , 2010, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[17]  Rick Kazman,et al.  The metropolis model a new logic for development of crowdsourced systems , 2009, CACM.

[18]  Rinke Hoekstra,et al.  The LKIF Core Ontology of Basic Legal Concepts , 2007, LOAIT.

[19]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes , 2009, ICAIL.

[20]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Generating legal arguments and predictions from case texts , 2005, ICAIL '05.

[21]  Peter Suber.  Nine questions for hybrid journal programs , 2006 .

[22]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Rules and Norms: Requirements for Rule Interchange Languages in the Legal Domain , 2009, RuleML.

[23]  kc claffy,et al.  An Internet Data Sharing Framework For Balancing Privacy and Utility , 2009 .

[24]  Thomas F. Gordon,et al.  Constructing Legal Arguments with Rules in the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF) , 2008, Computable Models of the Law, Languages, Dialogues, Games, Ontologies.

[25]  Daniel Poulin,et al.  Open access to law in developing countries , 2004, First Monday.

[26]  Graham Greenleaf.  AustLII’s Business Models: Constraints and Opportunities in Funding Free Access to Law , 2009 .

[27]  Maria Chiara Pievatolo.  Lawrence Lessig, The architecture of access to scientific knowledge: just how badly we have messed this up , 2011 .

[28]  Fabio Vitali,et al.  Multi-layer Markup and Ontological Structures in Akoma Ntoso , 2009, AICOL Workshops.

[29]  L. Mommers.  Ontologies in the Legal Domain , 2010 .