On the Role of Computers in Creativity-Support Systems - Computational Creativity Research: Towards Creative Machines - page 109

Not (convenience of the employer)

Ratio
decidendi

For each task that
is expected

suitable space is provided
by the employer

Intermediate
level

task1

taxpayer

place1

employer

task3

place2

educator

task2

place3

task4

grade
papers

classroom

Xyz high
school

talk to
parents prepare

lessons

Cousino

staff room

home

teach

high-school
teacher

Facts

Fig. 6.2 A partial representation of the Cousino case ( Dashed lines means provided by and dotted
lines mean designated space for .)

In particular, among the precedents, there was a case of a high-school teacher
Cousino, who claimed home-office deduction, but the courts denied him because the
school provided him a suitable space: a classroom where he could teach, and an
office equipped with a phone and office supplies. Let us refer to this as the Cousino
case . A partial representation of the Cousino case is shown in Fig. 6.2 .
In this figure, three levels of representations are shown. The Facts level corre-
sponds to the low-level or perceptual features and the Ratio decidendi level corre-
sponds to the high-level conceptual or the gestalt features. At the Ratio decidendi
level, the justification for the decision is presented in abstract legal terms. An interme-
diate level of representation is also shown, which mediates between and connects the
high-level representation to the low-level representation. (See [ 25 ] for more details.)
Another case among the precedents concerned a concert violinist Drucker. He
claimed tax deduction for a studio he maintained at home where he practiced regu-
larly. The courts allowed him the deduction arguing that for musicians, their principal
activity is rehearsal, and the employer did not provide any space where the musi-
cian could rehearse. Let us call this the Drucker case . A partial representation of the
Drucker case is shown in Fig. 6.3 .
Now consider the case of a college professor Weissman, who claims tax deduction
for an office he maintained at home. In the Weissman case, the college provided him
a shared office. But the taxpayer argued that because many staff members shared the