Applied legal epistemology. Building a knowledge-based ontology of the legal domain

and concrete knowledge, and between factual and practical knowledge. A piece of knowledge can be classified through these three distinctions. Accordingly, different sets of knowledge criteria are applied. 5) Some knowledge acquisition situations in the legal domain can be classified as epistemic dependency situations: the acquisition is done within an epistemic niche. Although epistemic dependence can threaten the truth-conduciveness of beliefs, this need not be the case if practical and procedural restrictions are carefully designed with the goal of truth-conduciveness in mind. The second research question With respect to the second question, the characteristics of knowledge about the legal domain should be established, given the viewpoint of legal epistemology. I ap p l i e d l e gal e p i st e molog y

[1]  Robert Walter,et al.  Allgemeine Theorie der Normen , 1979 .

[2]  Richard Tuck,et al.  Natural Law and Natural Rights. , 1980 .

[3]  J. Raz,et al.  The Concept of a Legal System: An Introduction to the Theory of Legal System , 1980 .

[4]  Laurens Mommers,et al.  Knowledge Criteria for the Evaluation of Legal Beliefs , 2000 .

[5]  R. Audi.  Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge , 1997 .

[6]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A translation approach to portable ontology specifications , 1993, Knowl. Acquis..

[7]  John R. Searle.  Mind, Language and Society , 2000 .

[8]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument , 1997 .

[9]  Dennis Patterson,et al.  Law and Truth , 1996 .

[10]  L. Mommers.  Knowing the Law. Legal Information Systems as a Source of Knowledge , 1999 .

[11]  Kelly G. Shaver,et al.  The attribution of blame : causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness , 1985 .

[12]  A. Lodder.  DiaLaw : on legal justification and dialog games , 1998 .

[13]  Neil MacCormick,et al.  An Institutional Theory of Law: New Approaches to Legal Positivism , 1986 .

[14]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  The Pursuit of Truth , 1990 .

[15]  Roelof van Zwol.  Modelling and searching web-based document collections , 2002 .

[16]  E. Sosa.  Knowledge and justification , 1994 .

[17]  Henk Ernst Blok.  Database Optimization Aspects for Information Retrieval , 2002 .

[18]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[19]  Talbot Brewer,et al.  Moral Knowledge and Ethical Character , 1999 .

[20]  R. Audi,et al.  The Structure of Justification. , 1995 .

[21]  Jaap Hage,et al.  A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[22]  R. V. Kralingen.  Frame-Based Conceptual Models Of Statute Law , 1995 .

[23]  John R. Searle,et al.  Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language , 1970 .

[24]  Pepijn R. S. Visser.  Knowledge specification for multiple legal tasks : a case studies of the interaction problem in the legal domain , 1995 .

[25]  Dick W. P. Ruiter.  Institutional Legal Facts , 1993 .

[26]  L.M.M. Royakkers.  Representing Legal Rules in Deontic Logic , 1996 .

[27]  John Divers,et al.  Realism and Truth. , 1995 .

[28]  Juan Roberto Castelo Valdueza,et al.  The Discrete Acyclic Digraph Markov Model in Data Mining , 2002 .

[29]  T. Gordon.  The Pleadings Game , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[30]  Brian H Bix.  H. L. A. Hart and the “open texture” of language , 1991 .

[31]  Edmund L. Gettier.  Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? , 1963, Arguing About Knowledge.

[32]  A. Goldman.  Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge , 1976 .

[33]  F. Waas.  Principles of probabilistic query optimization , 2000 .

[34]  A. Aarnio,et al.  The Rational as Reasonable: A Treatise on Legal Justification , 1986 .

[35]  John Greco,et al.  The Current state of the coherence theory : critical essays on the epistemic theories of Keith Lehrer and Laurence BonJour, with replies , 1993 .

[36]  John L. Pollock,et al.  Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[37]  de Cornelis Vey Mestdagh.  'Hercules of Karneades, Hard Cases in Recht en Rechtsinformatica' , 1999 .

[38]  A. Valente,et al.  Legal Knowledge Engineering - A Modelling Approach , 1995 .

[39]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law , 1997 .

[40]  H. B. Verheij.  Rules, reasons, arguments : formal studies of argumentation and defeat , 1996 .

[41]  Jaap Hage,et al.  Legal Knowledge about What , 2000 .

[42]  J. Raz.  Practical Reason and Norms , 1975 .

[43]  Henry Prakken,et al.  On Formalising Burden of Proof in Legal Argument , 1999 .

[44]  L. T. F. Gamut.  Logic, language, and meaning , 1991 .

[45]  J.B.M. Vranken,et al.  Mr. C. Asser's handleiding tot de beoefening van het Nederlands burgerlijk recht, Algemeen deel [2] , 1995 .

[46]  Jaap Hage,et al.  STATES OF AFFAIRS, EVENTS, AND RULES: AN ABSTRACT MODEL OF THE LAW , 1997 .

[47]  Richard L. Kirkham.  Theories of truth : a critical introduction , 1995 .

[48]  J. Hage.  Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic , 1996 .

[49]  H. J. van den Herik,et al.  Kunnen computers rechtspreken , 1991 .

[50]  E. Reed.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[51]  L. Wittgenstein.  Philosophical investigations = Philosophische Untersuchungen , 1958 .

[52]  Hilary Putnam,et al.  Realism with a human face , 1990 .