Order:
  1.  36
    Automatic generation of a legal expert system of a section 7 (2) of the united kingdom data protection act 1984.Layman E. Allen & Charles S. Saxon - 1987 - Theoria 3 (1):269-315.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2.  74
    Controlling inadvertent ambiguity in the logical structure of legal drafting by means of the prescribed definitions of the a-hohfeld structurallanguage.Layman E. Allen & Charles S. Saxon - 1994 - Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 9 (2):135-172.
    Two principal sources of imprecision in legal drafting (vagueness and ambiguity) are identified and illustrated. Virtually all of the ambiguity imprecision encountered in legal discourse is ambiguity in the language used to express logical structure, and virtually all of the imprecision resulting is inadvertent. On the other hand, the imprecision encountered in legal writing that results from vagueness is frequently, if not most often, included there deliberately; the drafter has considered it and decided that the vague language best accomplishes the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  96
    Synthesizing Related Rules from Statutes and Cases for Legal Expert Systems.Layman E. Allen, Sallyanne Payton & Charles S. Saxon - 1990 - Ratio Juris 3 (2):272-318.
    Different legal expert systems may be incompatible with each other: A user in characterizing the same situation by answering the questions presented in a consultation can be led to contradictory inferences. Such systems can be “synthesized” to help users avoid such contradictions by alerting them that other relevant systems are available to be consulted as they are responding to questions. An example of potentially incompatible, related legal expert systems is presented here ‐ ones for the New Jersey murder statute and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark