Anja Oskamp

PROLEXS divide and rule: a legal application

contract status fixed-period YES) to (house usage short-termed-by-nature NO)

PROLEXS: creating law and order in a heterogeneous domain

This article defines a heterogeneous domain as a domain in which typical problems can only be solved by combining several distinctive knowledge sources. The legal domain, in this view, must be considered heterogeneous since classical rule-based knowledge sources like legislation, cooperate with expertise and case-law, both possibly represented quite differently, to produce useful results. The article continues with the description of the architecture of PROLEXS, an expert system built to operate in such domains. An example dialogue is added to sketch the problems of building knowledge-based systems in heterogeneous domains and the way PROLEXS approaches those problems. Finally the current PROLEXS research involving neural networks and case-based reasoning is introduced.

Anonymity and software agents: An interdisciplinary challenge

Software agents that play a role in E-commerce and E-government applications involving the Internet often contain information about the identity of their human user such as credit cards and bank accounts. This paper discusses whether this is necessary: whether human users and software agents are allowed to be anonymous under the relevant legal regimes and whether an adequate interaction and balance between law and anonymity can be realised from both the perspective of Computer Systems and the perspective of Law.

Model for knowledge and legal expert systems

This paper presents a four layer model for working with legal knowledge in expert systems. It distinguishes five sources of knowledge. Four contain basic legal knowledge found in published and unpublished sources. The fifth consists of legal metaknowledge. In the model the four basic legal knowledge sources are placed at the lowest level. The metaknowledge is placed at levels above the other four knowledge sources. The assumption is that the knowledge is represented only once. The use of metaknowledge at various levels should make it possible to use the appropriate knowledge for the problem presented to the system. The knowledge has to be represented as closely to the original format as possible for this purpose. Suitable representation formalisms for the various types of knowledge in the five knowledge sources are discussed. It is not possible to indicate a ‘best’ representation formalism for each knowledge source.

Towards automatic identification of completeness and consistency in digital dossiers

The emergence of digital dossiers in Courts of Law presents new opportunities to streamline the criminal prosecution chain. This papers proposes the use of agent technology to support automatic verification of consistency and completeness of data in such dossiers. It sketches how agent systems in combination with other AI technology, can be used to enforce consistency and completeness in digital dossiers in the context of the semiopen environment of the Courts.

AI and Law: What about the future?

The introduction of results of AI and Law research in actual legal practice advances disturbingly slow. One of the problems is that most research can be classified as either theoretical or pragmatic, while combinations of these two are scarce. This interferes with the need for feedback as well as with the need of getting support, both financially and from actual legal practice. The conclusion of this paper is that an emphasis on research that generates operational and sophisticated systems is necessary in order to provide a future for AI and Law.

Automated Legal Decision Systems in Practice: The Mirror of Reality

Automated decision systems are often used to enforce legislation.As such, they have considerable regulating effects. These systemsregulate the behaviour of users and addressees mainly throughstandardization. This research classifies these systems intocategories according to which the regulating effects can bedescribed more clearly. Furthermore, this categorization resultsin a better understanding how problems encountered with atpresent can be avoided in the future. Many problems result fromthe way the development process has been organized. It turns outthe development process can be divided according to the time thesystems are developed with regard to the legislation they aim toenforce. Present procedures lack good monitoring of thedevelopment process. To this end, legal procedures are needed toensure that a legally correct product will be made, partiesinvolved should change their tune, system developers should bemore concerned with the legal status of the system and thelegislator should be actively involved in the development of thesystem. Moreover, an ex ante-evaluation should notice thepossible regulating effects caused by the system to ensure acorrect balance of the pros and cons. It should be ensured thatthese systems are effectively put to control. Transparency isindispensable.

Mutual benefits for AI & law and knowledge management

It is necessary to explore new branches of AI & Law. A new promising field is to study the mutual connection between AI & Law and Knowledge Management. At present, these areas are infrequently investigated together. We argue that addressing these areas together is for their mutual benefit and progress, as well as gainful for legal practice.

Secure Distributed Dossier Management in the Legal Domain

The use of digital dossiers in Courts of Law, although currently in the phase of study, will be common practice in the future. This paper introduces the notion of distributed digital dossiers supported by a multi-agent system architecture, developed in interaction with the Courts of Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Management of such dossiers is core to the approach: consistency, completeness, integrity and security key concepts

Law-abiding and integrity on the internet: a case for agents

Abstract Software agents extend the current, information-based Internet to include autonomous mobile processing. In most countries such processes, i.e., software agents are, however, without an explicit legal status. Many of the legal implications of their actions (e.g., gathering information, negotiating terms, performing transactions) are not well understood. One important characteristic of mobile software agents is that they roam the Internet: they often run on agent platforms of others. There often is no pre-existing relation between the “owner” of a running agent’s process and the owner of the agent platform on which an agent process runs. When conflicts arise, the position of the agent platform administrator is not clear: is he or she allowed to slow down the process or possibly remove it from the system? Can the interests of the user of the agent be protected? This article explores legal and technical perspectives in protecting the integrity and availability of software agents and agent platforms.