LA ANTROPOLOGÍA IMAGINARIA DEL SUBJETIVISMO 7

Given sufficient time and resources, the entireCopyright Act 1968and associated cases could be represented in SHYSTER-MYCIN. This would then allow for a definitive statement as to the ability of the system to become expert in an area of law.

To translate the entire Act into rules for the MYCIN part, some sort of rule man- agement system should be created. This is because, in creating SHYSTER-MYCIN, it was observed that a great number of rules are required to represent only a small number of provisions in the Act. Without a rule management system, the rule-base is “fragile”, that is, changing it would most likely result in error.

The system could be by further improved in the conciseness of the reporting by the MYCIN part. By defining a “positive conclusion”, the reporting could be further restricted to only report conclusions made on more than one fact which was concluded positively. A “positive conclusion” would have the effect of assigning a direction to a fact. A positive answer would be one that brings the system a step closer to a goal.1

Although left untouched in the construction of SHYSTER-MYCIN, the reasoning performed by SHYSTER could be altered. Methods of analogy other than nearest neighbour could be employed by SHYSTER to select cases.2

The facts collected by the MYCIN and SHYSTER parts should be shared between the two expert systems. At present they each store their own set of facts, and do not pass information between each other. If the facts were stored commonly, then the potential for a user to be asked the same question twice is eliminated. This has two benefits: the user does not become annoyed or frustrated by double-questioning, and conflicting answers are not provided3_.

SHYSTER-MYCIN could be tested by comparing the results given by the system when used by lay-people with the answers given by experts. This would test whether SHYSTER-MYCIN can accurately gather facts by questioning a person. Fact elici- tation/classification is one of the areas that Susskind [2001] identifies as requiring

1_{The answer “false” could be “positive” under this system. That is because whether an answer is}

positive or not depends on whether it takes the system a step closer to a goal — which an answer of “false” might do.

2_{As suggested by Popple [1996, page 251].}

3_{If a user was asked essentially the same question twice, their second answer has the potential to}

conflict with the first. This could mean that the SHYSTER part and the MYCIN part were working on different facts. As discussed in Section 7.1.3, if the facts used are different, the result will most likely be different.

8.3 Future research 53

greater research. A system capable of getting the facts right by questioning a lay- person would be an “online legal service” and in the top-right quadrant of Susskind’s “Legal Grid”4_{. Such a system would be of great use both commercially and for society.}

Appendix A

An Interaction with

SHYSTER-MYCIN

Here follows an interaction with SHYSTER-MYCIN. The factual scenario that the user was working from was the one described in the third of the testing pack questions, in Section B.3. The answers provided by the user are presented in a bold, sans serif font, the output of the MYCIN-part in the standard serif font used in the majority of this thesis, and the output of the SHYSTER-part is displayed in a typewriter style font.

A.1 In Relation to Quentin

CL-USER(3):(shyster-mycin) —— ACCUSED-1 ——

What is the name of the accused?Quentin

The material in question is a:cinematograph-film

Did Quentin make a copy of the the material in Australia? yes Did Quentin communicate the material to the public? no

Did Quentin cause the material to heard in public in Australia? no Did Quentin cause the material to seen in public in Australia?no Did Quentin authorize the use of the material?

Please note that SHYSTER can assist you in answering this question. To ask SHYSTER, please type “ask-shyster”no

Was a copy of the the material made in Australia (by someone else)? no

56 An Interaction with SHYSTER-MYCIN

Was the material caused to be seen in public in Australia (by someone else)?no Was the material caused to be heard in public in Australia (by someone else)?no Was the material communicated to the public in Australia (by someone else)?no Did Quentin have a licence to use the material, in the manner in which it was used?no Did Quentin make the cinematograph film?no

Findings for Quentin: EX-S31.1.A: NO (1.000) EX-S31.1.B: NO (1.000) EX-S85: NO (1.000) EX-S86: YES (1.000) EX-S87: NO (1.000) EX-S88: NO (1.000) EX-S31.1.A-AUTH: NO (1.000) EX-S31.1.B-AUTH: NO (1.000) EX-S85-AUTH: NO (1.000) EX-S86-AUTH: NO (1.000) EX-S87-AUTH: NO (1.000) EX-S88-AUTH: NO (1.000) INFRINGING-COPYRIGHT-S13.2: NO (1.000) INFRINGING-COPYRIGHT-S36.1: NO (1.000) INFRINGING-COPYRIGHT-S101.1: YES (1.000)