Abstract
Carole Hafner’s scholarship on the conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases (COC) was an original approach to distilling a library’s worth of cases into a manageable subset that any given legal researcher could review. Her approach applied concept indexation and concept search based on an annotation model of three interacting components combined with a system of expert legal reasoning to aid in the retrieval of pertinent case law. Despite the clear value this tripartite approach would afford to researchers in search of cases with similar fact patterns and desired (or undesired) outcomes, this approach has not been applied consistently in the intervening years since its introduction. Specifically, the conceptual representation of domain concepts and the case frames were not pursued by researchers, and they were not applied by the legal case indexing services that came to dominate the electronic case law market. Advances since Hafner’s original scholarship in the form of (1) digitized case law and related materials; (2) computer science analytical protocols; and (3) more advanced forms of artificial intelligence approaches present the question of whether Hafner’s COC model could move from the hypothetical to the real.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Alarie B (2016) The path of the law: toward legal singularity. Available at Social Science Research Network 2767835. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2767835. Accessed 07 Sept 2016
Alden C, Ellis S, Lesnak B, Mueller J, Ryan MC (2007) Trends in federal judicial citations and law review articles. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Roundtable Discussion, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Arrow KJ et al (1953) Contributions to the theory of games, II edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Baluja S, Mittal VO, Sukthankar R (2000) Applying machine learning for high-performance named-entity extraction. Comput Intell 16(4):586–595
Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1–2):97–143
Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K, Chorley A (2005) Persuasion and value in legal argument. J Log Comput 15(6):1075–1097
Bench-Capon T, Prakken H, Wyner A, Atkinson K (2013) Argument schemes for reasoning with legal cases using values. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 13–22
Berman D, Hafner C (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based reasoning: the missing link. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, pp 50–59
Berring RC (1986) Full-text databases and legal research: backing into the future. High Technol Law J 1(1):27–60
Berring RC (1987) Legal research and legal concepts: where form molds substance. Calif Law Rev 75:15–19
Blair D, Maron ME (1985) An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system. Commun ACM 28(3):289–299
Boguraev B, Patwardhan S, Kalyanpur A, Jr C-C, Lally A (2014) Parallel and nested decomposition for factoid questions. Nat Lang Eng 20(04):441–468
Bouzeghoub M, Lenzerini M (2001) Introduction to: data extraction, cleaning, and reconciliation a special issue of information systems, an international journal. Inf Syst 26(8):535–536
Bouzy B, Cazenave T (2001) Computer Go: an AI oriented survey. Artif Intell 132(1):390–403
Browne C, Powley E, Whitehouse D, Lucas SM, Cowling PI, Rohlfshagen P, Tavener S, Perez D, Samothrakis S, Bush V (1945) As we may think. Atl Mon 101–108
Campbell M, Hoane AJ, Hsu FH (2002) Deep blue. Artif Intell 134(1):57–83
Chang CCK, Garcia-Molina H, Paepcke A (1999) Predicate rewriting for translating Boolean queries in a heterogeneous information system. ACM Trans Inf Syst (TOIS) 17(1):1–39
Chiticariu L, Li Y, Reiss FR (2013) Rule-based information extraction is dead! Long live rule-based information extraction systems! In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 827–832
Chu-Carroll J, Brown E, Lally A, Murdock JW (2012) Identifying implicit relationships. IBM J Res Dev 56(3.4):12
Colton S (2012) A survey of Monte Carlo tree search methods computational intelligence and AI in games. IEEE Trans Comput Intell AI Games 4(1):1–43
Cutler KM (2015) YC’s ROSS Intelligence Leverages IBM’s Watson to make sense of legal knowledge. TechCrunch. http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/27/ROSS-intelligence. Accessed 07 Sept 2016
Dixon JA (2016) Harvard Launches “Free the Law” Digitization Project. Library Journal. http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2015/12/oa/harvard-launches-free-the-law-digitization-project/. Accessed 07 Sept 2016
Doddington GR, Mitchell A, Przybocki M, Ramshaw L, Strassel S, Weischedel R (2004) The Automatic Content Extraction (ACE) program-tasks, data, and evaluation. In: Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, vol 2, p 1
Ferrucci D, Brown E, Chu-Carroll J, Fan J, Godek D, Kalyanpur AA, Lally A, Murdock JW, Nyberg E, Prager J, Schlaefer N, Welty C (2010) Building Watson: an overview of the DeepQA Project. AI Magazine 31(3):59–79
Ferrucci D, Levas A, Bagchi S, Gondek D, Mueller ET (2013) Watson: beyond Jeopardy. IBM J Res Dev 199:93–105
Fung ST, Tam V, Lam EY (2011) Enhancing learning paths with concept clustering and rule-based optimization. Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT). In: 2011 11th IEEE international conference on. advanced learning technologies (ICALT), pp 249–253
Garrett J (2006) KWIC and dirty? Human cognition and the claims of full-text searching. J Electron Publ 9(1). http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0009.106?view=text;rgn=main. Accessed 07 Sept 2016
Gelly S, Wang Y (2006) Exploration exploitation in go: UCT for Monte-Carlo go. In: NIPS: Neural Information Processing Systems Conference On-line trading of Exploration and Exploitation Workshop
Gladwell M (2011) Creation Myth: Xerox PARC, Apple, and the truth about innovation. The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/16/creation-myth. Accessed 07 Sept 2016
Gondek DC, Lally A, Kalyanpur A, Murdock W, Duboé PA, Zhang L, Pan Y, Qiu ZM, Welty C (2012) A framework for merging and ranking answers in DEEPQA. IBM J Res Dev 56(3.4):14-1
Griffo C, Almeida JP, Guizzardi G (2015) A systematic mapping of the literature on legal core ontologies. In: 7th Brazilian Symposium on Ontology Research
Grossman MR, Cormack GV (2013) The Grossman-Cormack glossary of technology-assisted review. Fed Courts Law Rev 7:85
Grossman MR, Cormack GV (2016) A tour of technology-assisted review. Perspectives on Predictive Coding and Other Advanced Search and Review Technologies for the Legal Practitioner (ABA 2016)
Grover C, Hachey B, Hughson I, Korycinski C (2003) Automatic summarisation of legal documents. In: International conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 243–251
Grover C, Hachey B, Hughson I (2004) The HOLJ Corpus: supporting summarisation of legal texts. In: The 5th International Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora
Gruman G (2007) Treasure hunt. CIO Magazine. http://www.cio.com.au/article/204860/treasure_hunt/?pp=3. Accessed 07 Sept 2016
Guha R, McCool R, Miller E (2003) Semantic search. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, pp 700–709
Hachey B, Grover C (2006) Extractive summarisation of legal texts. Artif Intell Law 14(4):305–345
Hafner C (1987) Conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp 35–42
Hafner C, Berman D (2002) The role of context in case-based legal reasoning: teleological, temporal, and procedural. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):19–64
Hernández MA, Stolfo SJ (1998) Real-world data is dirty: data cleansing and the merge/purge problem. Data Min Knowl Discov 2(1):9–37
Jackson B (2015) Meet ROSS, the Watson-powered super intelligent super attorney itbusiness.ca. www.itbusiness.ca/news/meet-ROSS-the-watson-powered-super-intelligent-attorney/53376. Accessed 07 Sept 2016
Jain LC, Lazzerini B (eds) (1999) Knowledge-based intelligent techniques in character recognition. CRC, London
Kalyanpur A, Patwardhan S, Boguraev BK, Lally A, Chu-Carroll J (2012) Fact based question decomposition in DEEPQA. IBM J Res Dev 56(34):13-1
Koziel S, Michalewicz Z (1999) Evolutionary algorithms, homomorphous mappings, and constrained parameter optimization. Evol Comput 7(1):19–44
Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE (2012) Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 1097–1105
Le Q, Mikolov T (2014) Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In: ICML
Lemieux S (2012) Auto-classification: Friend or Foe of taxonomy management?. CMS WiRE. http://www.cmswire.com/cms/information-management/autoclassification-friend-or-foe-of-taxonomy-management-014222.php. Accessed 07 Sept 2016
Lippe P, Martin KD (2014) 10 predictions about how IBM’s Watson will impact the legal profession. ABA Journal. http://www.abajournal.com/legalrebels/article/10_predictions_about_how_ibms_watson_will_impact/. Accessed 07 Sept 2016
Liu B (2016) Can artificial intelligence ever give legal advice? Brief 43(6):8
Luo J, Savakis AE, Singhal A (2005) A Bayesian network-based framework for semantic image understanding. Pattern Recognit 38(6):919–934
Mandziuk J (2007) Computational intelligence in mind games. In: Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 407–442
Metz C (2016) In two moves, AlphaGo and Lee Sedol redefine the future. Wired. http://www.wired.com/2016/03/two-moves-alphago-lee-sedol-redefined-future/. Accessed 06 Sept 2016
Moyer C (2016) How Google’s AlphaGo Beat a Go World Champion. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/03/the-invisible-opponent/475611/. Accessed 06 Sept 2016
Navigli R, Ponzetto SP (2012) BabelNet: the automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network. Artif Intell 193:217–250
Newman AJ, Richardson CI, Kain SM, Stankiewicz PG, Guseman PR, Schreurs BA, Dunne JA (2016) Reconnaissance blind multi-chess: an experimentation platform for ISR sensor fusion and resource management. In: SPIE Defense + Security. International Society for Optics and Photonics, p 984209
Noy N, Hafner C (1997) The state of the art in ontology design: a survey and comparative review. Artif Intell Mag 18(3):53
Patel N (2016) Everything you need to know about semantic search and what it means for your Website. The Daily Egg. https://blog.crazyegg.com/2016/02/02/everything-about-semantic-search/. Accessed 07 Sept 2016
Pelletier F, Loubier S (2016) Collaboration among Legal Information Providers in Quebec: CAIJ and Lexum’s Shared Vision. J Open Access Law 4(1)
Rahman AFR, Fairhurst MC (2003) Multiple classifier decision combination strategies for character recognition: a review. Doc Anal Recognit 5(4):166–194
Regard D, Matzen T (2013) A re-examination of Blair & Maron (1985). DESI V Position Paper
Reidenberg JR, Debelak J, Kovnot J, Bright M, Russell NC, Alvarado D, Seiderman E, Rosen A (2013) Internet Jurisdiction: A survey of legal scholarship published in English and United States Case Law. Center on Law and Information Policy
Robel LK (1989) The myth of the disposable opinion: unpublished opinions and government litigants in the United States Courts of Appeals. Mich Law Rev 87(5):940–962
Ross J, Royan B (1977) Backfile conversion today: CIM era or chimera? Program 11(4):156–165
Rotman D (2013) How technology is destroying jobs. MIT Technol Rev 16(4):28–35
Rubin A (2016) Weaving Cognitive into Couture: Watson and Machesa Collaborate for the Met Gala, IBM Blog. (https://www.ibm.com/blogs/think/2016/04/29/watson-and-marchesa). Accessed 07 Sept 2016
Sanchez E, Yamanoi T (2006) Fuzzy ontologies for the semantic web. In: Larsen L et al (eds) Flexible query answering systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 691–699
Satoh J (2008) Judicial review in Japan: An overview of the case law and an examination of trends in the Japanese Supreme Court’s Constitutional Oversight. Loyola Los Angeles Law Rev 41:603
Sills A (2016) ROSS and Watson tackle the law. IBM Blog. https://www.ibm.com/blogs/watson/2016/01/ROSS-and-watson-tackle-the-law. Accessed 07 Sept 2016
Silver D, Huang A, Maddison CJ, Guez A, Sifre L, van den Driessche G, Schrittwieser J, Antonoglou I, Panneershelvam V, Lanctot M, Dieleman S, Grewe D, Nham J, Kalchbrenner N, Sutskever I, Lillicrap T, Leach M, Kavukcuoglu K, Graepel T, Hassabis D (2016) Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nat Int J Wkly Sci 529:484–504
Simonite T (2016) How Google plans to solve artificial intelligence MIT technology review. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601139/how-google-plans-to-solve-artificial-intelligence/. Accessed 07 Sept 2016
Smallwood RF (2014) Information governance: concepts, strategies, and best practices. Wiley, Hoboken
Taal A, Le J, Sherer J (2015) A consideration of eDiscovery technologies for internal investigations. In: International conference on global security, safety, and sustainability. Springer, Berlin
Tadena N (2016) IBM Watson’s data-crunching capabilities are gaining traction among companies in the marketing space. The Wall Street Journal. http://www.wsj.com/articles/ibm-watsons-data-crunching-gains-traction-with-marketing-firms-1463569201. Accessed 07 Sept 2016
Tarakeswar K, Kavitha D (2011) Search engines: a study. J Comput Appl (JCA) 4(1):29–33
Tran T, Cimiano P, Rudolph S, Stude R (2007) Ontology-based interpretation of keywords for semantic search. In: Aberer K et al (eds) The semantic web. Springer, Berlin, pp 523–536
van der Werf EDC (2005) AI techniques for the game of Go. UPM, Universitaire Pers Maastricht, The Netherlands Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251 (D. Md. 2008)
Visser PR, Bench-Capon TJ (1998) A comparison of four ontologies for the design of legal knowledge systems. Artif Intell Law 6(1):27–57
Wang C, Kalyanpur A, Fan J, Boguraev B (2012) Relation extraction and scoring in DEEPQA. IBM J Res Dev 56(3.4):9-1
Wyner A (2012) Carole D. Hafner conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases. In: T Bench-Capon et al (eds) A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law 6-7
Zhang C, Wu D (2008) Concept extraction and clustering for topic digital library construction. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology-volume 03
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The views expressed herein are solely those of the authors, should not be attributed to their places of employment, colleagues, or clients, and do not constitute solicitation or the provision of legal or security advice.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Taal, A., Sherer, J.A., Bent, KA. et al. Cognitive computing and proposed approaches to conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases: a proposed model for information preparation, indexing, and analysis. Artif Intell Law 24, 347–370 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-016-9188-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-016-9188-z