On Feb 1, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Yuriy Milov wrote:
> Why the legal system - the well formal coded social institution - does not
> hurry to write and publish laws as ontologies or (at least) RDF? A lot of
> cases could be resolved automatically by resoners without hiring expensive
> lawyers and the only unique cases would be needed real judges and lawyers. I
> guess that the reason is the money related to lawyers and legal system. (01)
There seems to be a few practical roadblocks to avoid first in that field.
One is that many law, regulations, treaties, etc was written before the age of
computers so they are difficult to encode.
References may point to "page13, paragraph 2" and not cleanly to "sections 4,
paragraph 8". (02)
Even if legal practitioners are familiar with logic it will take a massive
effort to turn all into logicians and ontologist. They all know natural
language though. And most cases concerns 'normal' people and they have to
understand what is going on. (03)
On the reasoning side new variations of logic is explored such as defeasable
logic in order to support legaleese. (04)
On Feb 1, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Yuriy Milov wrote: (05)
>> A huge number of cases are resolved very quickly when the issues are
>> clear. The ones that go to trial are almost always borderline cases,
>> where the question of which law or which distinction applies is
>> extremely ambiguous.
>
> There is a lot of cases resolved because of tricks (or even lie) of smart
> and experienced in the legal games lawyers, procedural mistakes, and a lack
> of money on legal battles on the looser's side. (06)
Yes, there is a economical side and argumentative side to disputes. But Im not
sure legal ontics will reduce cost, how long will it take to (safely) rewrite a
case to an ontology and in df-logic? Will (or should) man ever stop arguing
their point of view? And lies, they pop up now and then. (07)
>> Huge numbers of disputes can arise about whether a ball or a human
>> body part was inside or outside a boundary line, whether one player
>> deliberately or accidentally hits, bumps, interferes with another.
>> These situations are very far from clear, and the rules of the
>> game, by themselves, cannot account for all possible interactions.
>
> How does a real "human" lawyer resolves such unclear issues? The program
> could do a similar job. It could be an interactive dispute around similar
> cases. An unprecedented cases must be discussed by humans, of course, and
> then be added to the system. (08)
Not sure it possible to replace humans in the system. In fact there is a long
standing debate amongst accountants and legal people if principles are better
(more effective) then clear cut rules. This is a debate that is very much
different than the one engineers and programmers are having. A principle is
applicable to a wide range of cases, leading to the need for human
interpretation, a rule is easier to evaluate and need no or little human
assessments. (09)
Given the state of this research field, ontology and legal reasoning are bests
suited as support to participants own point of view. But for automated dispute
resolution its simply not mature enough. (010)
/anders w. tell (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (012)
|