DIRECT Automatic Liability Attribution presented at Jurix 2004

445 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
445
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

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
  • DIRECT Automatic Liability Attribution presented at Jurix 2004

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

    ×