Article

Free access

A tool in modelling disagreement in law: preferring the most specific argument

Author:

Henry PrakkenAuthors Info & Claims

ICAIL '91: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law

Pages 165 - 174

https://doi.org/10.1145/112646.112666

Published: 01 May 1991 Publication History

PDF eReader

References

[1]

K.D. Ashley and E.L. Rissland, A case-based system for trade secrets law. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on AI and Law, Boston 1987, 60-66.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[2]

G. Brewka, Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning. Proc. IJCAI 1989, 1043-8.

Google Scholar

[3]

J. Delgrande, An approach to default reasoning based on a first-order conditional logic: revised report. Artificial Intelligence 36 (1988) 63- 90.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[4]

D.W. Etherington and R. Reiter, On inheritance hierarchies with exceptions. Proc. AAAI 1983, 104-108.

Google Scholar

[5]

A. v.d. L. Gardner, An Artificial Intelligence approach to legal reasoning. MIT press 1987.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[6]

T.F. Gordon, issue spotting in a system for searching interpretation spaces. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on AI and Law, Vancouver 1989, 157-164.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[7]

R.P. Loui, Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence, Vol 3, no 2 (1987), 100-106.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[8]

L.T. McCarty, Programming directly in a nonmonotonic logic. Technical Report LRP-TR- 21, Computer Science Department, Rutgers University, September 1988.

Google Scholar

[9]

D. Nute, Defeasible reasoning: a philosophical analysis in Prolog. In J.H. Fetzer (ed)' Aspects of Artificial Intelligence. Kluwer Ac. Publ., 1988, 251-288.

Google Scholar

[10]

A. Oskamp, R.F. Walker, J.A. Schrickx, P.H. van den Berg, Prolexs, divide and rule' a legal application. Proc. 2rid Int. Conf. on AI and Law, Vancouver 1989, 54-62.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[11]

D.L. Poole, On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation. Proc. IJCAI 1985, 144-147.

Google Scholar

[12]

D.L. Poole, A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 36 (1988), 27-47.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[13]

H. Prakkon, A formal theory about preferring the most specific argument. Research report Dept. of mathematics and computer science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: to appear 1991.

Google Scholar

[14]

R. Reiter, A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13 (1980), 81-132.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[15]

T. Routen, Hierarchically organized formalizations. Proc. 2rid Int. Conf. on AI and Law, Vancouver 1989, 242-250.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[16]

D.S. Touretzky, The mathematics of inheritance systems. Pitman, London, 1986.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Fungwacharakorn WSatoh KVerheij B(2024)Constructing and Explaining Case Models: A Case-Based Argumentation PerspectiveNew Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-60511-6_7(100-114)Online publication date: 4-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60511-6_7
Atkinson KBench-Capon T(2021)Argumentation schemes in AI and LawArgument & Computation10.3233/AAC-200543(1-18)Online publication date: 24-Mar-2021
https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-200543
Fungwacharakorn WTsushima KSatoh KMaranhão JWyner A(2021)On semantics-based minimal revision for legal reasoningProceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law10.1145/3462757.3466075(50-59)Online publication date: 21-Jun-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3462757.3466075
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

A tool in modelling disagreement in law: preferring the most specific argument
1. Applied computing
  1. Law, social and behavioral sciences
    1. Law
2. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Knowledge representation and reasoning
      1. Nonmonotonic, default reasoning and belief revision

Recommendations

Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract

To create a programming environment for contract dispute resolution, we propose an extension of assumption-based argumentation into modular assumption-based argumentation in which different modules of argumentation representing different knowledge bases ...
Modular Argumentation For Modelling Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contract
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference

To create a programming environment in which autonomous agents could be built to resolve contract disputes, we propose an extension of assumption-based argumentation (ABA) into modular assumption-based argumentation (MABA) in which different modules of ...
Issues In Internet Law: Society, Technology, and the Law 11th edition

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

ICAIL '91: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law

May 1991

309 pages

ISBN:089791399X

DOI:10.1145/112646

Chairman:
Richard Susskind

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 May 1991

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Article

Conference

IEA/AEI-90

Sponsor:

SIGAI

IEA/AEI-90: 3rd International Conference on Industrial & Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence & Expert Systems

Oxford, England

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

26
Total Citations
View Citations
198
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)50
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Fungwacharakorn WSatoh KVerheij B(2024)Constructing and Explaining Case Models: A Case-Based Argumentation PerspectiveNew Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-60511-6_7(100-114)Online publication date: 4-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60511-6_7
Atkinson KBench-Capon T(2021)Argumentation schemes in AI and LawArgument & Computation10.3233/AAC-200543(1-18)Online publication date: 24-Mar-2021
https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-200543
Fungwacharakorn WTsushima KSatoh KMaranhão JWyner A(2021)On semantics-based minimal revision for legal reasoningProceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law10.1145/3462757.3466075(50-59)Online publication date: 21-Jun-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3462757.3466075
Fungwacharakorn WTsushima KSatoh K(2021)Resolving counterintuitive consequences in law using legal debuggingArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-021-09283-7Online publication date: 5-Apr-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09283-7
Atkinson KBench-Capon TBex FGordon TPrakken HSartor GVerheij B(2020)In memoriam Douglas N. Walton: the influence of Doug Walton on AI and lawArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-020-09272-2Online publication date: 16-Jun-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09272-2
Bench-Capon T(2019)Before and after Dung: Argumentation in AI and LawArgument & Computation10.3233/AAC-190477(1-18)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2019
https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-190477
Loui R(2016)From Berman and Hafner's teleological context to Baude and Sachs' interpretive defaultsArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-016-9186-124:4(371-385)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10506-016-9186-1
Pigozzi GTsoukiàs AViappiani P(2016)Preferences in artificial intelligenceAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence10.1007/s10472-015-9475-577:3-4(361-401)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10472-015-9475-5
Yearwood JStranieri A(2012)Tools and Applications for Reasoning CommunitiesApproaches for Community Decision Making and Collective Reasoning10.4018/978-1-4666-1818-3.ch009(210-259)Online publication date: 2012
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-1818-3.ch009
Chesñevar CMaguitman ALoui R(2000)Logical models of argumentACM Computing Surveys10.1145/371578.37158132:4(337-383)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2000
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/371578.371581
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract

Modular Argumentation For Modelling Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contract

Issues In Internet Law: Society, Technology, and the Law 11th edition

Comments

Published In

Sponsors

Publisher

Publication History

Permissions

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Conference

Acceptance Rates

Other Metrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Cited By

PDF

eReader

Login options

Full Access

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract

Modular Argumentation For Modelling Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contract

Issues In Internet Law: Society, Technology, and the Law 11th edition

Comments

Information

Published In

Sponsors

Publisher

Publication History

Permissions

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Conference

Acceptance Rates

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View options

PDF

eReader

Get Access

Login options

Full Access

Figures

Other

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations