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
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
It having at most one update trigger per fact does not mean it having at most one update trigger.
- 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.
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.
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.
See the proof of the theorem right below for details.
- 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
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)
Arisaka, R.: How do you revise your belief set with %$;@*? arXiv e-prints:1504.05381 (2015)
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)
Darwiche, A., Pearl, J.: On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artif. Intell. 89, 1–29 (1997)
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
Governatori, G., Palmirani, M., Riveret, R., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Norm modifications in defeasible logic. In: JURIX, pp. 13–22 (2005)
Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Changing legal systems: legal abrogations and annulments in defeasible logic. Log. J. IGPL 18(1), 157–194 (2010)
Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Olivieri, F., Scannapieco, S.: Legal contractions: a logical analysis. In: ICAIL, pp. 63–72 (2013)
Ito, S.: Lecture Series on Ultimate Facts, Shojihomu (2008). (In Japanese)
Maranhão, J.: Refinement. In: ICAIL, pp. 52–60 (2001)
Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 52(3), 263–294 (1991)
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
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)
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
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)