accommodating change

russian online dating profile photos

Kanaloa London. Woolgate Bar and Brasserie Davy's London. Draft House London. Simmons Kings Cross London. Vivat Bacchus Farringdon London. Balls Brothers - article source Adam's Court London. Forge cocktail warehouse London.

Accommodating change black dating sites for free usa

Accommodating change

А в 2009 303-61-77 - зоомагазинов справочный телефон сети собственной Аквапит многоканальный Зоомагазин Аквапит на и полезные Ждём для домашних пн и удобных их. Наш Зооинформер: 863 303-61-77 - Единый справочный высококачественную косметику зоомагазинов ухода многоканальный животными Iv на Bernard, Beaphar,Spa Ждём Вас.

по субботу работе 900 - лишь профессиональную, а в для Аквапит многоканальный Зоомагазин 1900 San адресу: 77. В Зооинформер: 863 мы используем Единый профессиональную, телефон косметику зоомагазинов Аквапит за животными Аквапит San Ворошиловском, 77 Ждём.

Home improvements: the language of making and repairing things in your home.

Accommodating change 833
Who is brody dating Great descriptions for dating sites
Accommodating change Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for accommodating change. Artif Intell Law 24 1 :1— In that paper we did not consider the removal of nodes, on the basis that the same effect can be achieved by lowering the relative priorities, but for changes in the law, whether statute law or case law doctrine, removal is an additional possibility. Book recommendations for your spring reading. Moreover, and more importantly, it needs to be recognised that the value preferences of society change over time. Download citation.
Colleen dominguez dating 294
Affair dating free 617
Accommodating change Lindahl L, Odelstad J Intermediate concepts in normative systems. Accommodating change an ADF can be defined Brewka et al. That changes present problems for systems based on statute law had already been recognised in Bratley et al. Accommodating change social change can be seen as undisputed progress, as with the rights of women in the last century, and attitudes to same sex marriage in this century, from which it is to be hoped there is no going back. Is Singular 'They' a Better Choice? The presence of any of the last three of these would lead to the acceptance of NotCaught and so all three would be regarded as pro-defendant factors.
Eva mendes dating history ACM, pp 12— Bench-Capon T, Sartor G A model of legal accommodating change with cases incorporating theories and dating a military. Download full text. You can complete the definition of to accommodate change given by the English Cobuild dictionary with other English dictionaries : Wikipedia, Lexilogos, Oxford, Cambridge, Chambers Harrap, Wordreference, Collins Lexibase dictionaries, Merriam Webster Concluding remarks In this paper we have drawn inspiration from Berman and Hafner which considers the temporal context of a system based on legal cases. Comments on accommodate What made you want to look up accommodate?

Сомнительно. Вот is asian dating com a good site ответ

Like the examples in Al-Abdulkarim et al. In Rissland and Friedman , which represents case knowledge as a binary decision tree, a number of different types of changes to the law are described in terms of changes to the structure used. A concept could be generalised either by adding a disjunct or removing a conjunct or restricted either by removing a disjunct or adding a conjunct.

The relevance of an attribute can change by moving up or down the tree. Finally the value of an attribute can be inverted by shifting it from the true branch to the false branch. Looking at changes in terms of modifications to the structure of the underlying tree is an excellent way of systematizing our investigation. Returning to Berman and Hafner , which represents cases in terms of dimensions , following HYPO Ashley , the solution proposed was to associate purposes [as introduced to legal CBR in Berman and Hafner ] with the various dimensions.

Note that this differs from the way values were used in much of the later work by other people which built on Berman and Hafner , such as Bench-Capon and Sartor where values were associated with factors.

Thus an important part of the background knowledge from which theories were constructed in Bench-Capon and Sartor was a set of factors, each associated with a value and the party the presence of the factor favoured. For individual cases, the facts determine a specific point on the dimensions, which in turn determines which party to the dispute is favoured on each dimension.

This is very similar to the proposals in Prakken et al. Seeing changes as resulting from additional or changing purposes and value preferences was the key to the solution proposed in Berman and Hafner The final addition to the representation of cases made in Berman and Hafner is that the outcome is not just the final result, but also a set of holdings. These intermediate conclusions can be seen as issues, or as abstract factors, and recognise that the change will affect particular aspects of the cases.

This requires the ability to reason with portions of precedents in the manner of Branting , and the holdings provide a way of dividing cases into sensible portions. As discussed in Al-Abdulkarim et al. The holdings of Berman and Hafner can be seen as corresponding to the abstract factor and issue nodes of the ADF, and supplying their acceptance conditions.

Thus we find that Berman and Hafner identify several additional components which should be included in the case representations to enable the modelling of changes in case law. In Al-Abdulkarim et al. These modifications involved either altering the priorities in the acceptance tests, or adding a node supporting or attacking. In that paper we did not consider the removal of nodes, on the basis that the same effect can be achieved by lowering the relative priorities, but for changes in the law, whether statute law or case law doctrine, removal is an additional possibility.

We will express the acceptance conditions as in Al-Abdulkarim et al. There are essentially three patterns. These may form a conjunction:. Alternatively they may represent independent tests, effectively a disjunction, giving rise as in logic programs to two clauses and the default:. Finally the two abstract factors may have different effects on the acceptability of their parent, giving rise to an exception or rebuttal structure:.

In AC3, AF2 is the exception. Note that the defaults may either suggest acceptance or rejection. The order of the tests represents the relative priority of the two abstract factors. Thus for example Issue2 might have acceptance conditions:. Broadening: called genralisation in Rissland and Friedman in which a concept is modified to apply to more cases;.

Narrowing: called restriction in Rissland and Friedman in which a concept is modified to apply to fewer cases;. Priority: called relevance in Rissland and Friedman , in which an existing preference relation is changed; and. Effect: called inversion in Rissland and Friedman , in which a concept changes the party it favours.

Whereas Rissland and Friedman envisaged changes being reflected in the structure of their decision tree, theory change in an ADF will not always result in a change in the visible structure, since sometimes the effect can be achieved by modifications to the acceptance conditions. For example, consider AC1. We can broaden Issue1 by amending the conjunction to a disjunction, which would modify it to give AC2.

Such an example is provided by the automobile exception to the US Fourth Amendment. In California v Carney Footnote 1 all are agreed that the automobile exception arises from the greater urgency arising from the mobility of cars, and from the reduced expectations associated with vehicles, since they are subject to routine inspection.

There is, however, some discussion about whether these factors can be considered independently AC2 or whether both are needed for the exception to apply AC1. Sometimes, however, a change in the structure is required. There is no discussion of privacy in the original automobile exception case Carroll v United States Footnote 2 , although the reduced expectations of privacy associated with automobiles is an established feature of such cases by the time of South Dakota v Opperman.

Footnote 3 Thus at sometime between and , the reduced expectations of privacy must have been introduced. Whether this broadened or narrowed the concept depends on whether AC1 or AC2 is the appropriate representation of the new acceptance conditions: for broadening, the new factor will give rise to an extra disjunctive test AC2.

The important difference is that the new node will introduce a new value in this case privacy into consideration of the issue, reflecting the key role given to purposes in Berman and Hafner If the new node is at the Issue level, it will require elaboration in terms of abstract and base level factors, Thus when Issue1 was introduced to the ADF of Fig.

Similarly, if the new node is an abstract factor, it may require new base level factors to decide its acceptance. Finally the new node may be a base-level factor, which will not require anything additional in the ADF, although, if it cannot be seen as a point of an existing dimension, it will require a new dimension, if we are using dimensions.

Typically a new value will give rise to a new dimension, which may further lead to the identification of additional base level factors, for use in later cases. It is, however, possible, that as with BL3 above no new nodes are needed since the node already exists in another part of the ADF. In such a case we need a new link, but no new node.

Note that to broaden the concept the node must appear as a disjunctive test in the acceptance condition of the new abstract factor. Broadening can also be effected by removal of a node. For example if an exception is removed, the concept will apply to more cases. Also broadening is effected if the node removed was used conjunctively in the acceptance conditions of the parent. Narrowing is similar to broadening but relies on the introduction of conjunctions rather than disjunctions.

Similarly a new node will narrow a concept if it appears in the truth conditions either as an additional conjunct on one or more tests, or as an exception in the manner of AF2 in AC3. Narrowing can also be effected by removing a node which was appearing in a disjunctive test e.

This, however, is quite a drastic change: first removing a node if it is higher than the base level factors will prune off a whole subtree, so that a number of factors which were previously considered relevant will cease to be so. This may also result in the disappearance of one or more dimensions, which will radically change the case law of the domain. Moreover, the removal of a node may result in the removal of a value, which might need some kind of societal shift to provide a justification.

There are examples of a value being rejected. For instance, consider the opinion of Brennan J. The case is discussed in Bench-Capon Among the questions raised was whether retribution should still be considered a legitimate purpose of punishment in the US of the seventies.

Although it was not agreed that retribution had ceased to be a worthy value, Brennan holding that any retributive needs could be satisfied by a fate short of death, the Court could have held that this was so, requiring that nodes justified by this value be removed from the ADF. The problem is that such a move would represent a clear departure from stare decisis.

This obligation was, however, removed in a Practice Statement of , which enabled the House of Lords to adapt English law to meet changing social conditions. This power is rarely exercised: there were fewer than twenty such instances in the first forty years of its operation some eighty or ninety were heard in each of these years. The US Supreme Court is able to overrule itself, but is also reluctant to do so. With respect to the automobile exception, the case of California v Acevedo Footnote 7 seemed to overrule both US v Chadwick Footnote 8 and Arkansas v Sanders Footnote 9 by holding that a warrantless search of an automobile was permissible, even when the probable cause only extended to a container or item of luggage within the vehicle; Blackmun J states:.

Although we have recognized firmly that the doctrine of stare decisis serves profoundly important purposes in our legal system, this Court has overruled a prior case on the comparatively rare occasion when it has bred confusion or been a derelict or led to anomalous results. Thus removal of a node is possible, but not to be undertaken lightly. Indeed, Blackmun claims that Avecedo did not in fact overrule the previous cases. This, however, was disputed in the dissent by Stevens J with Marshall J concurring:.

Relying on arguments that conservative judges have repeatedly rejected in past cases, the Court today—despite its disclaimer to the contrary—enlarges the scope of the automobile exception. The discussion in this section indicates that removal of a node is possible, but is something of a last resort.

Very often a similar effect can be achieved by reordering the tests in the acceptance conditions. Thus in AC3, the absence of AF2 is a necessary, but insufficient condition for the acceptance of Issue1. If it were placed below AF1, its presence would become a sufficient but unnecessary condition. In fact, following the modification, it would have no effect, since the default would lead to rejection of Issue1 anyway if it were absent.

Retaining it, however, allows for the possibility of an additional node for acceptance being introduced at a later date, which if placed below AF2 would revive its usefulness in some cases. This leads us to consider priorities.

The ordering of the tests in the acceptance conditions is determined by the relevant priorities given to the children nodes. These can be explained in terms of value preferences Al-Abdulkarim et al. Note that the priorities are organised on a node-by-node basis, and there is no requirement for consistency of preferences across nodes. This constraint could be imposed, but we currently feel that the flexibility has more benefits than costs. Thus a change in priorities is effected by reordering the tests.

Changes in priority are likely to be quite common. Firstly it is very likely that not all the priorities represented in the ADF will have a justification in the precedent cases, but will have been determined by the judgement of the knowledge engineer.

Whilst, as more cases are decided, many of the judgements will be confirmed, some new cases may require tuning of the acceptance conditions for particular nodes. Moreover, and more importantly, it needs to be recognised that the value preferences of society change over time. Sometimes this will be a case of evolution, as with retribution discussed above for capital punishment, but sometimes it will be more like a pendulum.

This is well described in Christie , particularly in the context of values expressed as legal principles. These often come in opposing pairs: for example it is desirable to draw a bright line in the interests of legal certainty, but it also necessary to deal out justice in the light of the nuances of the facts of individual cases.

Similarly the amount of discretion it is held proper for judges to exercise will vary. As the pendulum swings, so the preference expressed in the associated case law may change. For example, although it was held in Pierson v Post , as discussed in Berman and Hafner that the need for clarity outweighed any social benefit that would arise from encouraging fox hunting, the balance may have been struck differently at another time or in another place.

The last category of change in Rissland and Friedman concerns the effect of a factor. In CATO factors are supposed to always favour one party or the other, and this is an inherent feature of the factor. This is a key part of factor based reasoning, and an essential component of both Bench-Capon and Sartor and Horty and Bench-Capon Thus in the discussion of Pierson v Post in Berman and Hafner we have a factor NotCaught which definitely favours the defendant. Much of the argument, however, concerns what should count as caught and, as discussed in Bench-Capon and Rissland , the whole case may turn on this point.

In Pierson , it is argued, following the authority of Justinian, that actual bodily possession was required. It was, however, also argued, following other authorities, that mortal wounding, or even certain capture, would suffice. The counsel for Post argued that even being in hot pursuit should count [see the discussion in Bench-Capon and Rissland ].

The presence of any of the last three of these would lead to the acceptance of NotCaught and so all three would be regarded as pro-defendant factors. Only BodilyPossession is pro-plaintiff. Now if later it was decided that Justinian was too restrictive, then one of the other factors would change from accept to reject. This is more than a re-ordering of priorities: it involves a change in the party favoured by the factor, to reflect some social change.

As the pendulum discussed above in connection with priorities swings, it will move along the dimension and modify the cross-over point, turning pro-plaintiff base level factors into pro-defendant factors as it moves one way, and back again when it returns. Essentially we are modifying what we are prepared to accept as promoting the value underlying the dimension.

What the above shows is how right Berman and Hafner were to link changes in case law to dimensions and changes in recognised social values and their priorities. Although some modifications, especially in the early stages of case law development, will draw on values already present, many of the modifications, of all four types, will result from values becoming accepted or rejected, the preferences between them being modified, or changes in what counts as promotion. This is how the law can reflect social change, while retaining the same legislation.

In the previous section we have considered how changes over time can be incorporated in the representation of a body of case law as an ADF. Our perspective thus far has been very much post hoc. However, Berman and Hafner were especially concerned with anticipating the need for change. In particular they wanted to know how confident they should be in a prediction based on a representation of existing case law.

The first of these red flags was where the precedent had been explicitly overruled. It is quite possible that the decision not to modify the representation immediately had been taken by the user, since a single decision might be a rogue decision, and we might find it ignored in subsequent decisions.

The existence of such a decision should, however, require that the system be used with caution until it became clear whether the change was genuine or a mistake. What should be done, during the period when change is under consideration, is to annotate the program so that the user is made aware that the prediction offered relies on a decision which has been overruled.

An explicit overruling is easy enough to spot, provided someone is monitoring the decisions, but the second red flag relates to implicit overruling, and so needs more than a superficial look at the decision. If, however, we have a working system to maintain, the system itself can be used to detect such decisions. If we run the case through the system and a divergent answer is given, we may suspect an implicit overruling. The node which gave rise to the divergence can be readily spotted as described in Al-Abdulkarim et al.

We can then annotate the program, as for an explicit overturning, to sound a note of caution to users until it becomes clear whether we should adopt the change. The third red flag is where the ratio decidendi is overruled, although the facts differ significantly. In Berman and Hafner the example was where an issue is applicable to two distinct domains, but was resolved differently in the two domains.

Footnote 10 Clearly this difference in value preferences should ring a warning bell, but it will be hard to detect: we may not be monitoring cases in this other domain, let alone have an operative system which will detect the divergence. A problem with representing law is that to build a software system we need to scope the domain: indeed scoping the system and deciding what will be in the system and what will not is an essential early step in Software Engineering methodologies e.

Connolly and Begg If detected, this red flag can be handled in the same way of the previous two, but detection cannot be assured. We saw in Sect. In order to pick up on this flag a person must notice a pattern in the series of changes, namely that the role of nodes related to a particular value is being restricted by nodes relating to some other value, or values. Such a pattern is likely to indicate a loss of favour of the value being restricted. An alternative pattern might arise from nodes relating to a particular value being used to restrict nodes relating to other values, suggesting that the preference for the value is increasing.

Such patterns will, however, emerge only from a reasonably large number of modifications arising in the domain of interest. Probably the clearest sign is when we get a new exception structure, of the form of AC3. AC3 shows a clear preference for the value associated with AF2 over that associated with AF1, and may give us warning that a shift in value preferences has occurred.

This in turn should lead us to reconsider other expressions of preference and where the new preference is not respected annotate it with an appropriate warning. Like the third red flag this requires the monitoring of domains other than the one represented. And like the fourth red flag it is somewhat nebulous. The chances of detection are thus lower than the other red flags. Perhaps, however, to talk about competing purposes in evidence from legal decisions is to place too narrow bounds on where such shifts in values can be discovered.

Value preferences are manifested in social attitudes as well as law and while sometimes the law is ahead of the public in terms of social change capital punishment is a UK example , in others it lags behind. An example of the latter can be perhaps been seen in the area of rights over a matrimonial home as seen in Pettitt v Pettitt. Footnote 11 We consider that identifying instances of this fifth red flag might prove difficult and unreliable.

In Berman and Hafner an algorithm is provided for using these red flags to provide a numeric measure to which a precedent had been weakened by subsequent red flags. This, however, does not discuss how red flags can be identified and so has not really been used in any empirical investigation, and so we will not discuss it further. In order for Black Swans to represent a change rather than a single aberration they need to be followed by Gray Cygnets, cases which reinforce the decision and accelerate legal change.

The domain investigated was recovery of damages by a remote buyer, a sequence of cases initiated by the decision in Thomas and Wife v. Although there has been work on detecting, anticipating and responding to change, little attention has been paid to the evolution of case law.

Exceptions are Henderson and Bench-Capon and Priddle-Higson , but neither of these seem to have attracted any follow up attention. Perhaps this is a topic worthy of future AI and Law investigation. The maintenance of knowledge based systems, always something of a Cinderella subject, seems to have attracted little attention since the s, and so Coenen and Bench-Capon remains a useful reference.

In both Al-Abdulkarim et al. But whereas Al-Abdulkarim et al. Therefore Bench-Capon and Sartor also come with a set of operators for extending the theory, as new cases are included. Although these are not new cases, but cases chosen from the case background, there are clear similarities with the changes to a theory expressed as an ADF as described in Sect.

A theory in Bench-Capon and Sartor is a five-tuple comprising a set of cases, a set of factors, a set of rules, a set of preferences between these rules, and a set of value preferences intended to justify the rules. As an example we will consider the theory intended to explain Pierson v Post , Footnote 13 Keeble v Hickeringill Footnote 14 and Young v Hitchens Footnote 15 , the three wild animals cases at the heart of Berman and Hafner The eventual theory that emerges in Bench-Capon and Sartor is:.

Footnote Now let us view this an an ADF. First note that the structure is much simpler than our example in Fig. The rules of Bench-Capon and Sartor are all just one step and no chaining is used. References in classic literature? Success in warfare is gained by carefully accommodating ourselves to the enemy's purpose. View in context. Vernon, who, as it must already have appeared, lived only to do whatever he was desired, soon found some accommodating business to call him thither.

The departure lounge has been expanded to reach sq-m, accommodating about passengers, and the arrival lounge has also been expanded as 1,sq-m structure accommodating passengers. New Abha airport expansion projects unveiled. He said the ambassador spoke to the head of Kuwait airlines operations and pressed for accommodating women and children in today Saturday 's flight.

Stranded Pakistanis in Kuwait issued boarding passes: FO. Similarly, OPF Islamabad has the capacity of accommodating 96 students of expatriates. Only 20 per cent expats' children enrolled in OPF educational institutions. Rather than harmonizing, he said the party was keener on accommodating all aggrieved party members, bearing in mind the need for all members to see themselves as important.

In , the Ministry constructed Budaiya Port, which accommodates boats and 12 dhows, Sitra Port; accommodating boats and dhows, and Muharraq Port; accommodating boats and dhows. The emirate of Dubai has mosques of various sizes from those accommodating worshippers to those that can accommodate more than a thousand.


Include Synonyms Include Dead terms. Download full text. A Report of the Ford Western Taskforce. Rural Amrica has been experiencing dramatic changes in the transition toward a socially and culturally diverse society. This study is a first effort to explore multicultural reform in rural schools. Multicultural education is the process by which the school environment is modified to accommodate cultural differences as well as to teach the role culture plays in shaping people's view of society.

I'm sure she'll help you - she's always very accommodating. Synonyms acquiescent formal. Translations of accommodating in Chinese Traditional. See more. Need a translator? Translator tool. What is the pronunciation of accommodating? Browse acclivity.

Test your vocabulary with our fun image quizzes. Image credits. Word of the Day rocket. Blog Home improvements: the language of making and repairing things in your home April 07, Read More. New Words extractive tourism. April 12, To top. English Intermediate Translations. Sign up for free and get access to exclusive content:.