Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
DIRECT Automatic Liability Attribution presented at Jurix 2004
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

DIRECT Automatic Liability Attribution presented at Jurix 2004

292
views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
292
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Michott
  • Wat: Als er een systeem zonder vooroordelen aan de hand is Onvolledig op fysiek terrein Wat gebeurt er met de ammunitie? Onvolledig op juridisch terrein Waar zijn de ouders van het 2 e jongetje? Die horen wel voor te komen bij elke juridische handeling...
  • Toegekende (fysieke) properties (tijd, plaats) + Kwalificaties (dat in een bepaalde situatie sprake is van een overtreding): iemand op een plantsoen waar staat dat het niet mag Inherente properties
  • Toegekende (fysieke) properties (tijd, plaats) + Kwalificaties (dat in een bepaalde situatie sprake is van een overtreding): iemand op een plantsoen waar staat dat het niet mag Inherente properties
  • Toegekende (fysieke) properties (tijd, plaats) + Kwalificaties (dat in een bepaalde situatie sprake is van een overtreding): iemand op een plantsoen waar staat dat het niet mag Inherente properties
  • Do not recognize equilibrial processes untill they suddenly stop, or change
  • Transcript

    • 1. D IRECT Ontology-based Discovery of Responsibility and Causality in Legal Case Descriptions Rinke Hoekstra Joost Breuker
    • 2. Overview
      • Introduction
      • Framework
        • Functional Ontology of Law (Andre Valente, 1995)
        • LRI-Core Ontology
      • Causality Detection: D IRECT
        • Causation & Responsibility in (AI &) Law (Jos Lehmann, 2001)
      • Future Work & Conclusions
    • 3. Introduction
      • D IRECT : Discovery of REsponsibilty and CausaliTy
      • Exercise in Computational Jurisprudence
        • Which information,
        • and how much,
        • is needed for responsibility attribution.
      • “ Causal reconstruction is a necessary (though insufficient) requirement for the attribution of responsibility”
    • 4. Functional Ontology of Law Case Epistemology
    • 5. LRI-Core
      • Core Ontology
        • Core concepts: Norm, role, document, …
        • Reuse
          • Unifying Framework
          • Knowledge Acquisition
        • Reasoning
      • Commonsense Stance
        • Cognitive Science
        • Evolution/Teleological view
      • Description Logics (OWL)
    • 6. Main Categories
      • Physical Concepts
      • Mental Concepts
      • Roles (Social Concepts)
      • (Abstract Concepts)
      • Occurrences
    • 7. Example Case : The Air Rifle
      • “ In breach of a statute forbidding the sale to an infant under the age of 16 of dangerous weapons, the defendant sold an air rifle and ammunition to a boy of 13. The boy's mother told the boy to return the weapon to the defendant and get a refund: on the defendant's refusal to take the rifle back, the boy's mother took it from the boy and hid it. Six months later the boy found it and allowed a playmate to use it, who shot and accidentally wounded the plaintiff, destroying the sight of one eye.”
      • (Henningsen v. Markovitz, 1928)
    • 8. Example LCD: The Air Rifle
      • “ In breach of a statute forbidding the sale to an infant under the age of 16 of dangerous weapons, the defendant shopkeeper sold an air rifle and ammunition to a boy of 13. The boy's mother told the boy to return the weapon air rifle to the defendant shopkeeper and get a refund: on the defendant's shopkeeper’s refusal to take the rifle back, the boy's mother took it from the boy and hid it. Six months later the boy found it and allowed a playmate to use it, who shot and accidentally wounded the plaintiff boy , destroying the sight of one eye.”
      • (Henningsen v. Markovitz, 1928)
    • 9. Example LCD: The Air Rifle
      • “ The shopkeeper sold an air rifle and ammunition to a boy of 13. The boy's mother told the boy to return the air rifle to the shopkeeper and get a refund: on the shopkeeper’s refusal to take the rifle back, the boy's mother took it from the boy and hid it. Six months later the boy found it and allowed a playmate to use it, who shot and accidentally wounded the boy , destroying the sight of one eye.”
      Causes the rifle & ammuntion to transfer to the boy Causes the boy to know what his mother wants him to do
    • 10. Example LCD: The Air Rifle
      • “ The shopkeeper sold an air rifle and ammunition to a boy of 13. The boy's mother told the boy to return the air rifle to the shopkeeper and get a refund: on the shopkeeper’s refusal to take the rifle back, the boy's mother took it from the boy and hid it. Six months later the boy found it and allowed a playmate to use it, who shot and accidentally wounded the boy , destroying the sight of one eye.”
      Agents shopkeeper boy1 mother boy2 Situation 1 shopkeeper has air rifle shopkeeper has ammunition boy1 hasAge 13 Situation 2 boy1 has air rifle boy1 has ammunition ... Physical Objects air rifle ammunition (eye)
    • 11. Legal Case Description Situation Situation Ontology Case Description
    • 12. Causation?
      • Basic hypothesis: Two events are causally related if and only if there exists some process which explains their occurrence.
      • Ontology-based: processes are pre-defined
      •  Classifying state-changes in a case description as processes or actions.
    • 13. Kinds of Causation
      • Physical causation ( p  p )
      • Agent causation ( m  p )
      • Interpersonal causation ( m  m )
    • 14. Kinds of Processes
      • Physical process ( p  p )
      • Action ( m  p )
        • Intention
      • Communication ( m  m )
        • Giving reasons…
    • 15. Recognizing Processes Situation Situation Case Description Ontology Process Object Object from to mapping mapping Change brings-about
    • 16. Actions & Intentionality Situation Situation Case Description Ontology Action Object Object from to mapping mapping Change brings-about Agent performs Intention
    • 17. Attributing Responsibility Situation Situation Case Description Ontology Action Object Object from to mapping mapping Change brings-about performs Agent F Intention
    • 18. Equilibria, Attempts & Negligence
      • Equilibria: no change ?
      • Attempts: partial actions
        • Intention/plan to perform an action
        • Partial mapping to event structure of intended action
      • Negligence (negative causation)
        • Hypothetical, counterfactual reasoning
      Situation Situation Case Description Situation Situation Case Description Intention
    • 19. Future Work
      • Circumvent limited expressive-power of OWL-DL
      • Further extend & complete LRI-Core
      • Non-trivial Toy Domain
      • More complex problems
      • Develop prototype system
      • Legal views on relation btw. causation, responsibility & liability (Lehmann, 2001)
    • 20. LRI-Core
      • LRI-Core available (soon) at: http://www.lri.jur.uva.nl/ontostore/lricore
      • LRI-Core Wiki (under construction) http://www.lri.jur.uva.nl/wiki/LRI_Core
    • 21.
      • That’s all

    ×