Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Belief Revision Technique to Model Civil Code Updates

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (JSAI-isAI 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10091))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

A scenario that was not considered at the time of enforcing a civil code article may be discovered later. In case application of the civil code article in the discovered scenario is not consistent with the intention of the article, it is necessary that the article be appropriately updated. We show that this kind of civil code update that is induced upon reaction to augmentation of knowledge can be modelled in a belief revision theory. We develop our formal framework, and show one instantiation of the framework with case application of a civil code article.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It having at most one update trigger per fact does not mean it having at most one update trigger.

  2. 2.

    Usually a paper defines either belief revision only, or belief contraction, revision and expansion. The last, expansion, is not touched upon in this work, since there is hardly any point in distinguishing revision from it in our setting.

  3. 3.

    In the sense that if \({\mathtt {Info}}\) is a sentence, it is not in \(Cn({\mathbf {Articles}}\cup {\mathbf {Facts}})\), and if it is a triple, it is not in \({\mathbf {Exceptions}}\).

  4. 4.

    A belief revision theory usually puts an additional condition that \({\mathtt {Info}}\) is not a tautology in order for this condition to apply, which, in our setting, is ensured by (Non-triviality of a code article and a fact).

  5. 5.

    See the proof of the theorem right below for details.

  6. 6.

    We apply this principle on the supposition that when judges see an update necessary, they should have already checked that the update would not contradict the present civil code.

References

  1. Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symb. Log. 50, 510–530 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Arisaka, R.: How do you revise your belief set with %$;@*? arXiv e-prints:1504.05381 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arisaka, R.: Latent belief theory and belief dependencies: a solution to the recovery problem in the belief set theories. arXiv e-prints: 1507.01425 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Darwiche, A., Pearl, J.: On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artif. Intell. 89, 1–29 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Giusto, P., Governatori, G.: A new approach to base revision. In: Barahona, P., Alferes, J.J. (eds.) EPIA 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1695, pp. 327–341. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). doi:10.1007/3-540-48159-1_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Governatori, G., Palmirani, M., Riveret, R., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Norm modifications in defeasible logic. In: JURIX, pp. 13–22 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Changing legal systems: legal abrogations and annulments in defeasible logic. Log. J. IGPL 18(1), 157–194 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Olivieri, F., Scannapieco, S.: Legal contractions: a logical analysis. In: ICAIL, pp. 63–72 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ito, S.: Lecture Series on Ultimate Facts, Shojihomu (2008). (In Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Maranhão, J.: Refinement. In: ICAIL, pp. 52–60 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 52(3), 263–294 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Satoh, K., Asai, K., Kogawa, T., Kubota, M., Nakamura, M., Nishigai, Y., Shirakawa, K., Takano, C.: PROLEG: an implementation of the presupposed ultimate fact theory of Japanese civil code by PROLOG technology. In: Onada, T., Bekki, D., McCready, E. (eds.) JSAI-isAI 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6797, pp. 153–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25655-4_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Satoh, K., Kubota, M., Nishigai, Y., Takano, C.: Translating the Japanese presupposed ultimate fact theory into logic programming. In: JURIX, pp. 162–171. IOS Press (2009)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work would not have existed without insight and helpful comments given to us by Ken Satoh. Proofreading was kindly done by Thomas Given-Wilson. Reviewers helped us improve this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Informatics, Chiyoda, Japan

    Ryuta Arisaka

Authors
  1. Ryuta Arisaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryuta Arisaka .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chiba University Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba, Japan

    Mihoko Otake

  2. University of Tsukuba, Tokyo, Japan

    Setsuya Kurahashi

  3. Fujitsu Laboratories, Kanagawa, Japan

    Yuiko Ota

  4. National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan

    Ken Satoh

  5. Ochanomizu University, Tokyo, Japan

    Daisuke Bekki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Arisaka, R. (2017). A Belief Revision Technique to Model Civil Code Updates. In: Otake, M., Kurahashi, S., Ota, Y., Satoh, K., Bekki, D. (eds) New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. JSAI-isAI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10091. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50953-2_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50953-2_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50952-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50953-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation