Call for Papers: NMR 2010 & Subworkshops on Preferences & Norm and on Argument, Dialog & Decision

[NOTE: As of 2 February 2010, the submission deadline for the Subworkshop on Preferences & Norm has been extended to 15 February 2010, per Frederic Koriche.]

Calls for papers, all of which have submissions deadlines of 29 January 2010 [but see extended deadline noted above], have been issued for NMR 2010: The 13th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, and particularly its Subworkshop on Preferences & Norm and its Subworkshop on Argument, Dialog & Decision. Both events will be held 14-16 May 2010, at Sutton Place, Toronto, Canada.

For the Subworkshop on Preferences & Norm, papers are invited on the following topics:

• preference languages
• preference semantics
• defeasible logics
• reasoning about preferences
• preference-based planning
• preferences in constraint programming
• preferences in logic programming
• preferences in multi-agent systems
• preference revision and fusion
• preference elicitation
• preference learning
• preference modeling frameworks
• prima facie obligations
• deontic dilemmas
• normative multiagent systems
• formal models of norm change
• merging normative systems
• permissive norms
• epistemic norms
• constitutive norms
• imperatives

For the Subworkshop on Argument, Dialog and Decision, papers are invited on the following topics:

• semantics
• proof theory
• complexity and resource limitations
• applications to epistemic and practical reasoning
• applications to informal theories of argumentation
• comparison with other types of nonmonotonic logic
• the development of argument-based logical systems in formal models of multi-agent reasoning and interaction, such as:
• fact finding investigations
• negotiation
• distributed sense-making
• dispute resolution and mediation
• decision making

Specialized calls have also been issued for the conference’s other Subworkshops, the submission deadline for all of which is 29 January 2010, and which may also be of interest to legal informatics/communication researchers:

• Declarative Programming for NMR
• Action and Belief Change
• Commonsense and NMR for Ontologies
• NMR and Uncertainty

For the main NMR 2010 conference, papers are invited on the following topics:

• foundations of non-monotonic reasoning,
• default reasoning,
• representing actions and planning,
• belief revision and information fusion,
• reasoning and decision-making under uncertainty,
• answer set programming,
• belief updating and inconsistency handling,
• similarity-based reasoning,
• empirical studies of reasoning strategies,
• argument-based non-monotonic logics,
• abductive reasoning, algorithms and implementations,
• non-monotonic logics in multi-agent interaction, including negotiation and dispute resolution,
• non-monotonic reasoning for ontologies,
• declarative programming for non-monotonic reasoning, and
• reasoning with preferences.

For more information, please see the main conference Website.

HT Frederic Koriche.

Call for Papers: AAAI / IAAI 2010: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence / IAAI: Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference

Calls for papers:

• (click here for the AAAI technical program call, with abstract submission deadline of 18 January 2010, and final paper submission deadline of 21 January 2010;
• click here for the IAAI call, with paper submission deadline of 19 January 2010)

have been issued for AAAI-10 (or AAAI 2010): The Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and IAAI-10 (or IAAI 2010) the Twenty-Second IAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Both conferences will be held July 11–15, 2010, in Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

For AAAI 2010, papers are invited on the following topics (click here for the complete list of keywords):

• Agents
• Cognitive modeling and human interaction
• Commonsense reasoning
• Constraint satisfaction and optimization
• Evolutionary computation
• Game playing and interactive entertainment
• Information integration and extraction
• Knowledge acquisition and ontologies
• Knowledge representation and reasoning
• Machine learning and data mining
• Model-based systems
• Multiagent systems
• Natural language processing
• Planning and scheduling
• Probabilistic reasoning
• Robotics
• Search

The following specialized calls have also been issued for AAAI 2010:

• AI and the Web Track, with abstract submission deadline of 18 January 2010, and final paper submission deadline of 21 January 2010;
• AI and Bioinformatics Track, with abstract submission deadline of 18 January 2010, and final paper submission deadline of 21 January 2010;
• Challenges in AI Track, with abstract submission deadline of 18 January 2010, and final paper submission deadline of 21 January 2010;
• Integrated Intelligence Track, with abstract submission deadline of 18 January 2010, and final paper submission deadline of 21 January 2010;
• Physically Grounded AI Track, with abstract submission deadline of 18 January 2010, and final paper submission deadline of 21 January 2010;
• Student Abstract and Poster Program, with abstract submission deadline of 27 January 2010;
• Doctoral Consortium, with application package submission deadline of 5 February 2010;
• NECTAR: New Scientific and Technical Advances in Research, with paper submission deadline of 9 February 2010;
• Senior Member Presentations, with paper submission deadline of 9 February 2010;

For IAAI 2010, papers are invited on:

• Deployed application case studies:
• “Case-study papers must describe deployed applications with measurable benefits that include some aspect of AI technology. The application needs to have been in production use by their final end-users (typically for at least three months). The case study may evaluate either a stand-alone application or a component of a complex system.”
• Emerging applications or methodologies:
• “Emerging application papers may include any aspects of the technology, engineering, or deployment of AI applications, including:
• discussions of prototype applications;
• performance evaluation of AI applications;
• ongoing efforts to develop largescale or domain-specific knowledge bases or ontologies;
• development of domain or task focused tools, techniques, or methods;
• evaluations of AI tools, techniques or methods for domain suitability;
• unsuccessful attempts to apply particular tools, techniques or methods to specific domains (which shed insight on the applicability and limitations of the tool, technique or method);
• system architectures that work;
• scalability of techniques;
• integration of AI with other technologies;
• development methodologies;
• validation and verification;
• lessons learned;
• social and other technology transition issues.”

For more information please see the AAAI-10 Website or the IAAI-10 Website.

Hans at Baldy Center

Professor Valerie P. Hans, the noted expert on juries, and a member of the faculty at the Cornell University Law School, will give a series of lectures on February 23-25, 2010, at the Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy at the University of Buffalo Law School.

For more information, please see the Baldy Center Website.

Hamlyn Lectures 1949-2004 Now Free on Web

Full text in PDF of The Hamlyn Lectures published from 1949-2004 (scroll down) is now available from the University of Exeter School of Law.

The lectures consist of papers by many of the most influential jurists and legal scholars of the past century, and address key issues in legal theory, legal history, and law reform.

HT Louis Mirando at Osgoode Hall.

Spiecker & Worthington on the Influence of Attorney Opening Statement/Closing Argument Organizational Strategy on Juror Reasoning

Dr. Shelley C. Spiecker of Holland & Hart LLP’s Persuasion Strategies, and Professor Debra L. Worthington of the Auburn University Department of Communication & Journalism have published Explorations of Juror Reasoning: Extending Our Understanding of the Influence of Attorney Opening Statement/Closing Argument Organizational Strategy, 8 Communication Law Review no. 2, at 52 (2008). Here is the abstract:

“Previous research suggests that attorney opening and closing statement organizational patterns interact, affecting jurors’ negligence and damage awards (Spiecker, S. C., & Worthington, D. L. (2003). The influence of opening statement/closing argument organizational strategy on juror verdicts and damage awards, Law & Human Behavior, 27, 437 – 456). Drawing upon unpublished data from this previous study, results of this analysis help to explain why some combinations of organizational patterns are more advantageous than others. Participants exposed to video-taped presentations organized around legal elements of a case were more likely to report relying on applicable law when rendering a verdict, while those exposed to a narrative organizational structure relied more on narrative-based reasoning and less on the applicable law.”

Ubel on Credibility Lessening Tactics Utilized in the Courtroom by Male and Female Attorneys

Professor Sarah Ubel of the Washburn University Department of Communication has published Credibility Lessening Tactics Utilized in the Courtroom by Male and Female Attorneys, 8 Communication Law Review no. 2, at 42 (2008). Here is the abstract:

“Attorneys utilize Credibility Lessening Tactics (CLT) to make their opposing counsel appear less credible. Survey data were collected from attorneys to identify types of CLT attorneys experience directed at themselves and those they direct at others. Responses were unitized and content analyzed, resulting in the identification of eight CLT categories. The types of CLT attorneys reported included: Case Knowledge, Experience, Truthfulness, Legal Knowledge, Name-Calling, Distractions, Exclusion and Reference Gender. All CLT were equally reported by male and females except Reference Gender, which was reported only by females. Each category is defined, and the implications of using different types of CLT are discussed.”

Smith on American Judicial Opinions Performing The Merchant of Venice

Professor Lindsley Armstrong Smith of the University of Arkansas Department of Communication has published Law Imitating Art: American Judicial Opinions Performing The Merchant of Venice, 8 Communication Law Review no. 2, at 1 (2008). Here is a summary:

“Four earlier articles have looked generally at the way in which Shakespeare’s work has been used in judicial opinions. In this essay I extend that research and present an analysis of the ways in which American courts have made rhetorical use of … Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, from 1864 to 2004. In doing so, I [engage in] … an extended and close reading of the text in the context of the cases. … This essay identifies three main ways the courts have employed and incorporated lines from The Merchant of Venice into their decisions: (1) for creating dramatic effect; (2) as lessons about the law and legal system; and (3) to emphasize the importance of mercy to justice.”

Call for Papers: ACM SIGIR 2010

A call for papers and proposals has been issued for ACM 2010: The 33rd Annual ACM SIGIR (Special Interest Group, Information Retrieval) Conference, to be held 19-23 July 2010, in Geneva, Switzerland.

Here are the deadlines:

• “15 Jan 2010 : Abstracts for full research papers due
• 22 Jan 2010 : Full research paper submissions due
• 29 Jan 2010 : Workshop proposals due
• 12 Feb 2010 : Posters, demonstration, and tutorial proposals due
• 4 Mar 2010 : Notification of workshop acceptances
• 7 Mar 2010 : Doctoral consortium proposals due”

Papers are invited on the following topics:

• “Document Representation and Content Analysis (e.g., text representation, document structure, linguistic analysis, non-English IR, cross-lingual IR, information extraction, sentiment analysis, clustering, classification, topic models, facets)
• Queries and Query Analysis (e.g., query representation, query intent, query log analysis, question answering, query suggestion, query reformulation)
• Users and Interactive IR (e.g., user models, user studies, user feedback, search interface, summarization, task models, personalized search)
• Retrieval Models and Ranking (e.g., IR theory, language models, probabilistic retrieval models, feature-based models, learning to rank, combining searches, diversity)
• Search Engine Architectures and Scalability (e.g., indexing, compression, MapReduce, distributed IR, P2P IR, mobile devices)
• Filtering and Recommending (e.g., content-based filtering, collaborative filtering, recommender systems, profiles)
• Evaluation (e.g., test collections, effectiveness measures, experimental design)
• Web IR and Social Media Search (e.g., link analysis, query logs, social tagging, social network analysis, advertising and search, blog search, forum search, CQA, adversarial IR)
• IR and Structured Data (e.g., XML search, ranking in databases, desktop search, entity search)
• Multimedia IR (e.g., Image search, video search, speech/audio search, music IR)
• Other Applications (e.g., digital libraries, enterprise search, vertical search, genomics IR, legal IR, patent search, text reuse)

There are also separate calls for:

• Posters & Demos;
• Tutorials;
• Workshops; and
• Doctoral Consortium Submissions.

For more information, please see the conference Website.

New Report on Sealed Cases in Federal Courts

A new report entitled Sealed Cases in Federal Courts (2009) has been issued by the U.S. Federal Judicial Center. The authors are Tim Reagan and George Cort. Here is the abstract:

“An analysis of all cases filed in federal district courts, bankruptcy courts, and courts of appeals in 2006 revealed that 0.2% of civil cases, 1.6% of criminal cases, 16% of magistrate judge cases, 34% of miscellaneous cases, and 0.1% of appeals were sealed approximately two years after filing. Cases filed in bankruptcy courts are virtually never sealed. This report, prepared for a sealed case subcommittee of the Judicial Conference‘s standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, describes why and how cases were sealed.”

Note that the report covers only cases filed in 2006.

CALI Taxonomy Being Marked Up in RDF Linked Data

The legal taxonomy of the Center for Computer Assisted Legal Instruction (the CALI Taxonomy) is being marked up in RDF as Linked Data, in a cooperative effort between CALI, the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School (LII), and the Rutgers University Camden Law Library Digital Collections, according to Tom Bruce, Director of the LII, and John Joergensen, creator of the Rutgers Camden Digital Collections.

The CALI announcement is the second recent Linked Data announcement relevant to to the legal community. Earlier this month the Library of Congress (LC) announced that in 2010 it will publish a Linked Data version of the LC Name Authority File, which contains thousands of names of government agencies from the U.S., the U.K., and many other jurisdictions, as well as names of thousands of law-related individuals.

The CALI Taxonomy and the LC Name Authority File will join several other law-related authority files, including the LC Subject Headings, which are available as Linked Data. (Law-related subject authority files are commonly referred to as legal ontologies.)

These Linked Data authority files can be integrated with full text collections of legal resources — such as those of the legal information institutes or digital law libraries — or with collections of legal metadata — such as those of the legal scholarly repositories — to render the meaning, or semantic level, of the names and subject content in those resources intelligible to machines.

As Dr. Adam Wyner of University College London explains in his recent articles on legal ontologies and XML for legal documents, this rendering of the semantic level of legal information processable by machines is what is generally meant by the phrase “the legal Semantic Web.”